MONEY Savings

How to Thrive in Retirement After Falling Short of Goals

Turns out, many retirees don't need as much in savings as they once thought. They are surprisingly delighted with their downsized life and embrace a flexible budget.

Maybe the experts are wrong. Retirement planners say you will need at least 70% of pre-retirement income to enjoy your golden years. Some target as much as 80% or even 85%. Yet recent retirees with less say they are doing just fine, thank you.

Three years into retirement, the average replacement income of people with an IRA or 401(k) plan is just 66% of final pay, mutual fund company T. Rowe Price found. Yet more than half say they are living as well or better than when they were working, and 89% say they are somewhat or very satisfied with retirement so far.

Such findings belie our widely accepted retirement savings crisis. In aggregate, we are way under saved. The average 50-year-old has put away just $44,000. But clearly a large subset—those with either a 401(k) plan or IRA, or both—are doing pretty well. This is the group that T. Rowe Price surveyed by filtering for those retired less than five years or over 50 and still working.

This particular group of savers may want to let up on the handwringing. As recent research by EBRI and ICI show, consistent 401(k) investors (those who held accounts between 2007 and 2012) had balances 67% higher than overall plan participants, reaching an average $107,000.

For years a small band of economists led by Lawrence Kotlikoff, the Boston University economics professor, have been making the case that many people are over saving. Kotlikoff argues that the financial services industry is essentially scaring people into over saving in order to collect fees. The fright factor is evident in the T. Rowe Price survey, where those still at work expressed far more anxiety than those who have reached retirement and found it to be less financially challenging than they may have been led to believe.

Half of workers believe they will have to reduce their standard of living in retirement, compared to just 35% of recent retirees who think that way. More workers also believe they will run out of money (22% vs. 14%), and workers are much less likely to believe they will be able to afford health care (49% vs. 70%), the survey shows.

Recent retirees in this survey have median assets of $473,000. That includes investable assets plus home equity minus debt. Home equity is a big part of their holdings at $191,000. They have just 52% of investable assets in stocks and asset allocation mutual funds, and are playing it fairly safe with 31% in cash.

How are they managing on pre-retirement income that falls short of most planners’ models? A third are working at something or looking for work, and to augment Social Security and pension income they are drawing down their savings by an average of 4% a year, which is a rate that many planners consider reasonable.

But the real source of new retiree satisfaction may be their genuine appreciation for a downsized life: 85% say they do not need to spend as much in order to be happy and 65% feel relieved to no longer be trying to keep up with the Joneses. In addition, they embrace flexibility with 60% saying they would rather adjust their spending to maintain their portfolio than maintain their spending at the expense of their portfolio. With that attitude, almost any retiree can feel good about their life.

Related links:

 

MONEY 401(k)s

Are You a Saver or an Investor? It Matters in a 401(k)

Close-up piggy bank
Fuse—Getty Images

Most 401(k) participants see themselves as savers, new research shows. And it's holding them back.

The venerable 401(k) plan has many failings and is ill suited as a primary retirement savings vehicle. Yet it could do so much more if only workers understood how to best use it.

The vast majority of 401(k) plan participants view themselves as savers, not investors, according to new research. As such, they are less likely to allocate money to 401(k) plan options that will provide the long-term growth they need to retire in comfort.

Only 22% of workers in a 401(k) plan in the U.S., U.K. and Ireland say they are knowledgeable about investing, State Street Global Advisors found. This translates into a low tolerance for risk: only 27% in the U.S., 15% in the U.K., and 10% in Ireland say they are willing to take greater risk to achieve better returns.

This in turn leads to sinking retirement confidence. Only 31% in the U.S., 26% in the U.K., and 16% in Ireland feel they will save enough in their 401(k) plan to fund a comfortable retirement, the survey shows.

The faults of 401(k) plans are well documented and range from uncertain returns to high fees to failing to provide guaranteed lifetime income. Economic activists like Teresa Ghilarducci, a professor of economics at the New School and author of When I’m Sixty-Four, have been arguing for years that we need to return to something like the traditional pension.

But the switch to 401(k) plans from traditional pensions has taken more than three decades. A broad reversal will be slow too, if it comes at all. In the meantime, workers need to understand how to best use their 401(k) or other employer-sponsored defined contribution plan. Like it or not, these plans have become our de facto primary retirement savings vehicles.

At a basic level, plan participants of all ages must begin to embrace higher risk in return for higher rewards. The State Street survey reveals broad under-exposure to stocks, which historically have provided the highest long-term returns. A popular rule of thumb is to subtract your age from 110 to determine your allocation to stocks. But the latest research suggests that even just a few years from retirement you are better off holding more stocks.

There is much more to making the most of your 401(k) plan than just adding risk. You need to contribute enough to capture the full employer match and be well diversified, among other things. But it all starts with understanding that saving in a secure fixed-income product is not investing, and it is not enough to get you to the promised land.

Yes, the financial crisis is still fresh and the market’s deep plunge is an all-too-real reminder that stocks have risk. But just five years later the market has fully recovered, and 401(k) balances have never been plumper. Fixate on the recovery, not the downturn. A diversified stock portfolio almost never loses money over a 10-year period. It took the Great Depression and then the Great Recession to produce 10-year losses, which were less than 5% and disappeared quickly in the recovery.

If you feel nervous about investing in stocks, consider opting for a target-date retirement fund, which will give you an asset mix that shifts to become more conservative as you near retirement. While they may not suit everyone, target-date funds tend to outperform most do-it-yourselfers, research shows. With your asset mix on cruise control, you can focus on saving, which is enough of a challenge.

MONEY Savings

5 Ways to Keep a Crisis From Crushing You

Falling anvil with inadequate parachute
A majority of Americans are unprepared for a financial emergency. Michael Crichton + Leigh MacMill; Prop Styling by Jason MacIsaac

What would you do if you suffered an emergency that's bigger than your safety net? These strategies can cushion the blow.

You’ve no doubt diligently socked away a chunk of cash for a rainy day. But chances are it isn’t enough to keep you from worrying about being swept under by a passing financial storm. In a MONEY survey of 1,000 Americans conducted earlier this year, 60% of respondents said they didn’t feel they had enough emergency savings.

They’re probably right to be ­concerned: A new survey by Bankrate.com found that the majority of Americans making $75,000-plus have less than six months of emergency savings on hand. Meanwhile, experts typically recommend having at least that much and often as much as 12 months’ worth—lofty goals even for those who are otherwise well-off.

While you’re in the process of bulking up your kitty, lessen your anxiety by figuring out how you’d quickly lay your hands on cash if the roof fell in, literally and figuratively. “The goal is to reduce long-term damage to your finances,” says Scottsdale financial planner Brian Frederick. Putting the bills on a credit card can be a reasonable option for those able to pay off their debt in a jiffy, but carrying a balance for longer gets pricey when you’re talking about a 15% interest rate. Instead, keep these five better options in the back of your mind:

1. Crack a CD

In hopes of discouraging customers from fleeing when rates rise, banks have been hiking penalties for tapping a CD before its maturity date—six months’ interest is now common on a one-year certificate, and six to 12 months’ is typical on a five-year. Even so, “the interest is so small these days that a six-month penalty is almost meaningless,” says Oradell, N.J., financial planner Eric Mancini. On a $100,000, five-year CD at 2%, you’d give up just $100.

2. Sell Some Securities

Ditching money-losing stocks is clearly a better move than borrowing, says Frederick, given that you can use losses to offset up to $3,000 of capital gains for this year and carry any overage into future years. Everything in your portfolio on the up and up? While you’ll pay a 15% capital gains tax on the profits from any security you’ve held for more than a year, it might make sense to pare back on winners if your allocation has gotten out of whack.

3. Take Out a 401(k) Loan

Most plans allow you to borrow half your vested amount, up to $50,000, with generous terms: no setup fees and a 4% to 5% interest rate, paid to yourself. Moreover, as long as you keep making contributions, you probably won’t sacrifice much growth. A five-year, $20,000 loan against a $250,000 401(k) would reduce your balance by just $9,000 after 20 years, assuming you continued to save $500 a month during the loan term. But should loan payments require you to pull back on contributions, your nest egg will take a hit (see the graphic). Another risk: If you leave your job for any reason before repaying, you must cough up the entire balance within 60 days, or else you’ll owe income taxes and a 10% penalty on the funds. “You can end up feeling stuck in your job,” says Edina, Minn., ­financial planner Kathleen Longo.

the 20k loan

4. Tap the House

Whether or not you have a home-equity line of credit already, you’ll benefit from today’s low rates. The average on a new line is about 5%, but if your credit is nearly perfect, you can get closer to 3%, with no setup fee, Bank­rate.com reports. Plus, interest payments are usually tax-deductible. The caveats: It may take a few weeks to open a new line. Also, HELOCs are var­iable rate, so your payments may rise if the Fed hikes interest rates. Finally, some banks charge a fee if you close the line early; look for one that doesn’t.

5. Borrow from a Stranger

Those who don’t have adequate home equity can still beat rates on credit cards and personal bank loans by nabbing a loan from a peer-lending site like LendingClub or Prosper. Rates on those sites can be less than 7%, plus an origination fee of 1% to 3%. Peer loans are a good option for those with sterling credit histories, says Steve Nicastro, investing editor at NerdWallet. Check what rate you’d get using the sites’ tools. Look good for you? After you fill out an online form, the sites will take a few days to verify your info, then send your loan out to prospective lenders. Most loans are funded within a week.

More on building a stronger safety net:

MONEY early retirement

How Much Money Do I Really Need to Retire at 55?

140605_AskExpert_illo
Robert A. Di Ieso, Jr.

Q: I’m 40 and can’t imagine working till I am 65. If I want to retire in my mid-50s, how can I make sure I have enough money to live a comfortable lifestyle?

A: How much you need to put away depends on the kind of lifestyle you want in retirement. A general rule of thumb is that you’ll need to replace 70% to 80% of your pre-retirement income to have a similar standard of living when you retire. So if you earn $100,000 a year, you’ll need roughly $80,000 in annual income. Some of that will come from Social Security (once you reach retirement age) and a pension, if you get one, so perhaps your portfolio will need to produce $50,000 to $60,000 of that income.

You’ll probably need less than your pre-retirement income because you’re no longer socking away a big chunk of your salary for retirement—and if you are aiming to retire early, you should be maxing out all your savings options and more. Your income taxes will likely be lower and many of the costs associated with working, such as commuting and eating lunch out, will disappear.

But if you retire at 55, you’re looking at funding four decades of retirement. That means you’ll need a much bigger cash stash than someone with a standard 30-year time horizon, says Charles Farrell, CEO of Northstar Investment Advisors and author of Your Money Ratios: Eight Simple Tools for Financial Security.

If you work till the traditional retirement age of 65, you should have 12 times your annual household income saved, says Farrell. For someone earning $100,000 a year, that’s $1.2 million (his figures take Social Security benefits into account). But if you want to quit work at age 55 and replace 75% of your income, you’ll need 18 times your annual income or $1.8 million. That assumes a 4% annual withdrawal rate, adjusted for inflation. “Not only does your money have to last longer but as you draw down your nest egg, your savings has less time to grow,” says Farrell.

If you’re not on track, it’s not too late. As you hit your peak earning years and big expenses fall away, such as college tuition for your kids, you may be able to power save, putting away much bigger chunks of money. Or you can adjust your goal. “Maybe 60 or 62 is more realistic than 55 or you can get by on less than you think,” says Farrell.

If you push back retirement to age 62, you’ll need 16 times your annual salary saved. If you really want to quit work at 55 and you’re willing to live on 60% of your pre-retirement income, you’ll need 15 times your annual income. Or if you can get by on 50% of your household income—say you pay off your mortgage or you significantly downsize your home to cut your post-retirement expenses—a nest egg of 12 times your final income may be enough.

Early retirement requires a willingness to stick to a lifestyle that allows you to save diligently throughout your career, while avoiding money drains like high interest rate debt. If this is your dream, it’ll be well worth the effort.

MONEY retirement planning

The 3 Key Numbers To Know for a Successful Retirement

If you start early, it's easier to make your strategy work. Here's how to figure out where you stand.

Retirement calculations are all about the numbers. How big will your nest egg be? How much money will you need to earn in retirement to maintain your pre-retirement standard of living? What type of investment returns should you plan for? How long will you live? Lee Eisenberg even wrote an entire book several years ago about “The Number.”

Let’s restrict today’s numbers to three key figures: 1) the percent of your pre-retirement income you will need to maintain your current standard of living during retirement; 2) the amount of money you will need to sock away to achieve this replacement rate, and 3) how much you can pull out of your portfolio each year and still have a good shot at not outliving your money in retirement.

The Center for Retirement Research at Boston College just issued a study that took a crack at the first two items. It said middle-income retirees should adopt retirement-income targets that would replace 71% of their pre-retirement incomes. To do so, they would need to augment their Social Security and other pensions with contributions to their private savings that would average 15% of their pay if they began saving at age 35 and retired at age 65.

The comparable figures for low-income earners were an 80% replacement rate and an 11% savings rate. This is mainly because Social Security’s progressive benefit structure replaces a higher percentage of pre-retirement income for lower earners. On the other end of the scale, high earners were found to need a replacement rate averaging 67% and a 16% private savings rate.

We could endlessly debate whether these replacement rates and savings targets should be a few percentage points higher or lower. But while some financial advisers may base client strategies on income replacement rates, I have never interviewed a retiree who did so. These numbers are just guides, so don’t get carried away with them.

The big point is that we need to save a lot and to start at early ages. And we’re not saving nearly enough. A second major point of the CRR research is that continuing to work past age 65 can erase a lot of the savings shortfalls for those who haven’t set aside enough.

For example, if that typical middle-income earner doesn’t begin saving for retirement until age 45, she would need to save on average an implausible 27% of her income to permit her to retire successfully at age 65. If she continued working to age 67, that saving rate would fall to a still-unlikely 20%. But if she kept working until age 70, she would need to save a realistic 10% of her salary to maintain her standard living in retirement.

If you have been a dutiful saver, or even if you haven’t, you still need to figure out how to spend down your nest egg. Such discussions often begin with what’s called the 4% rule, which will celebrate its 20th birthday this October.

Developed in 1994 by financial planner William Bengen, it said nest eggs had a good shot at lasting for 30 years if a person began by pulling out about 4%t of their savings in the first year. Whatever number of dollars that represented would determine each successive year of dollar withdrawals plus an adjustment factor to keep pace with inflation.

In a recent study comparing different retirement drawdown strategies, the American Institute of Economic Research said of the rule, “For a rough estimate of how much is needed for retirement, it’s not bad. But no simple financial rule can take into account the complexity of real life.”

Bengen himself says as much. “For most people, to be perfectly honest, applying a 4.5% rule is probably not wise, even dangerous, because there are very simple assumptions that I used to develop that rule,” he said in a radio interview last year.

AIER, an independent non-profit in Massachusetts, ran a slew of retirement spending scenarios that involved variations of withdrawing a constant amount of dollars each year, a constant percentage of nest egg assets or an increasing percentage of assets. This last approach is based on the notion that adverse investment returns are especially damaging during the early years of retirement.

Withdrawing smaller percentages in those early years can help minimize nest-egg depletion (but it would have been scant protection from the Great Recession’s market plunge). You then can afford to withdraw larger percentages in later years primarily because your savings will need to last fewer years as you get older.

After producing nearly 100 combinations of drawdown approaches, dollar and percentage amounts, AIER was refreshingly candid: “There is no winning strategy.” Bad market conditions can ruin even the most prudent drawdown plans. Booming markets can make lunkheads look like geniuses.

Don’t get me wrong. The numbers do matter. But successful retirements, which is what we all really desire, are governed by emotions. I’ll write about these next week.

Philip Moeller is an expert on retirement, aging, and health. He is an award-winning business journalist and a research fellow at the Sloan Center on Aging & Work at Boston College. Reach him at moeller.philip@gmail.com or @PhilMoeller on Twitter.

Related stories:

 

MONEY Planning

When Conventional Wisdom About Retirement is Good Enough

Retirement investing isn't an exact a science. Rather than worrying whether the rules need to be tweaked, just start saving.

What keeps you up at night?

As a money manager, I recently polled my clients on several questions, and that was one of them. Replies ranged from “my bladder” to worries about the Federal Reserve printing too much money.

The most common answer, though, was fear of outliving one’s savings.

For decades, people have confronted the issue of how much they need to retire. Today the topic hits with special force. People are living longer, and the financial crisis of 2007-2009 set millions of people back twenty squares on the economic game board of life.

Now, there’s much debate about whether traditional retirement planning advice needs to be tweaked.

The traditional advice on income, for instance, is that people in retirement need about 60% to 70% of their old annual income to keep roughly the same standard of living. Remember, when you retire, your taxes may be lower, your children may be grown, your commuting and clothing expenses may shrink, and you may move out of a big house into a smaller house or apartment.

If savings and investments were your sole source of income, you would need – again, by conventional wisdom – about 25 times that sum in hand when you start your retirement. That is based on the traditional assumption that you can safely withdraw 4% of your initial nest egg each year and still have it last at least 30 years, regardless of market conditions.

That means if you earned $100,000 a year at the peak of your career, you would need about $65,000 a year in retirement, and 25 times that amount is $1,625,000.

Of course, inflation may increase your costs as years pass. If inflation runs at a 3% clip, a loaf of bread that costs $2.50 today will cost $4.50 in 2034. At 5% inflation, the same loaf would cost you $6.62.

You can offset some of the effects of inflation by your savings and investments, post-retirement. My father retired at 77 but invested in the stock market, logging prices and trends on charts he kept by hand. When he died at 98, his net worth had increased 75% from the day he retired.

Social Security can help, too. Despite doomsayers’ screeds, I believe the Social Security system will be around in 30 years. But benefits may be a little less generous than they are today.

These days, I see a lot of articles by financial planners questioning the guideline that it’s prudent to withdraw 4% a year.

I’ve seen planners argue for anything from a 2.8% withdrawal rate to a 5% one.

Those arguing for a smaller withdrawal rate — which implies the need for a bigger nest egg — say it’s hard to earn 4% a year after taxes without wading into risky investments. Savings accounts are paying a paltry 1% to 2%, and that’s before taxes.

But I think that’s a short-term view. Savings rates probably won’t stay as paltry as they are – just as inflation didn’t stay sky-high, as it was in the early 1980s.

For the long run, I think the 4% rule provides a decent, if crude, approximation.

Let’s be realistic here. Accumulating a pre-retirement hoard of 25 times the expected annual need is an ambitious target to start with.

But it’s something to strive for.

MONEY IRAs

This Simple Move Can Boost Your Savings by Thousands of Dollars

Stack of Money
iStock

Last-minute IRA savers and those who keep their money in cash are paying a procrastination penalty.

Individual Retirement Account contributions are getting larger—an encouraging sign of a recovering economy and improved habits among retirement savers.

But there is an “I” in IRA for a reason: investors are in charge of managing their accounts. And recent research by Vanguard finds that many of us are leaving returns on the table due to an all-too-human fault: procrastination in the timing of our contributions.

IRA savers can make contributions anytime from Jan. 1 of a tax year up until the tax-filing deadline the following April. But Vanguard’s analysis found that more than double the amount of contributions is made at the deadline than at the first opportunity—and that last-minute contributions dwarf the amounts contributed throughout the year. Fidelity Investments reports similar data—for the 2013 tax year, 70% of total IRA contributions came in during tax season.

Some IRA investors no doubt wait until the tax deadline in order to determine the most tax-efficient level of contribution; others may have cash-flow reasons, says Colleen Jaconetti, a senior investment analyst in the Vanguard Investment Strategy Group. “Some people don’t have the cash available during the year to make contributions, or they wait until they get their year-end bonus to fund their accounts.”

Nonetheless, procrastination has its costs. Vanguard calculates that investors who wait until the last minute lose out on a full year’s worth of tax-advantaged compounded growth—and that gets expensive over a lifetime of saving. Assuming an investor contributes the maximum $5,500 annually for 30 years ($6,500 for those over age 50), and earns 4% after inflation, procrastinators will wind up with account balances $15,500 lower than someone who contributes as early as possible in a tax year.

But for many last-minute savers, even more money is left on the table. Among savers who made last-minute contributions for the 2013 tax year just ahead of the tax-filing deadline, 21% of the contributions went into money market funds, likely because they were not prepared to make investing decisions. When Vanguard looked at those hasty money market contributions for the 2012 tax year, two-thirds of those funds were still sitting in money market funds four months later.

“They’re doing a great thing by contributing, and some people do go back to get those dollars invested,” Jaconetti says. “But with money market funds yielding little to nothing, these temporary decisions are turning into ill-advised longer-term investment choices.”

The Vanguard research comes against a backdrop of general improvement in IRA contributions. Fidelity reported on Wednesday that average contributions for tax year 2013 reached $4,150, a 5.7% increase from tax year 2012 and an all-time high. The average balance at Fidelity was up nearly 10% year-over-year to $89,100, a gain that was fueled mainly by strong market returns.

Fidelity says older IRA savers racked up the largest percentage increases in savings last year: investors aged 50 to 59 increased their contributions by 9.8%, for example—numbers that likely reflect savers trying to catch up on nest egg contributions as retirement approaches. But young savers showed strong increases in savings rates, too: 7.7% for savers aged 30-39, and 7.3% for those aged 40-49.

Users of Roth IRAs made larger contributions than owners of traditional IRAs, Fidelity found. Average Roth contributions were higher than for traditional IRAs across most age groups, with the exception of those made by investors older than 60.

But IRA investors of all stripes apparently could stand a bit of tuning up on their contribution habits. Jaconetti suggests that some of the automation that increasingly drives 401(k) plans also can help IRA investors. She suggests that IRA savers set up regular automatic monthly contributions, and establish a default investment that gets at least some level of equity exposure from the start, such as a balanced fund or target date fund.

“It’s understandable that people are deadline-oriented,” Jaconetti says. “But with these behaviors, they could be leaving returns on the table.”

Related:

 

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 retirement planning

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 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.

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