How to bridge a retirement shortfall
If you want to get yourself thoroughly depressed, spend a little time looking at statistics about Americans’ retirement preparedness
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.If you want to get yourself thoroughly depressed, spend a little time looking at statistics about Americans’ retirement preparedness.
In Vanguard’s most recent How America Saves report, the average participant balance in Vanguard plans was $134,000 in 2023, but the median balance was just $35,000. For workers with Vanguard plans who were between ages 55 and 64, the average and median balances were $245,000 and $88,000, respectively, in 2023. Roughly half of people between age 55 and 66 have no retirement savings at all, according to U.S. Census Bureau data, and women are in worse shape than men from the standpoint of retirement preparedness.
Clearly, many people are hurtling toward a shortfall, or living through one. And for people who are dramatically undersaved and largely reliant on Social Security for in-retirement living expenses, there’s no getting around the fact that their standard of living in retirement is going to be lower than it was when they were working.
Rather than looking to a single blockbuster solution to help make up for a savings gap, what if you were to consider a little bit of several prudent strategies—being willing to cut your standard of living a bit in retirement, working a bit longer, and investing a bit better, for example?
Employing more modest changes around the margins of your plan means they’re apt to be more palatable from a lifestyle perspective, too; the thought of working until age 70 might not appeal but holding out until age 67 may be more doable.
Work longer
As pre-retirees have no doubt heard, working even a few years past traditional retirement age can deliver a threefer on the financial front, allowing additional savings and tax-deferred compounding, fewer years of portfolio drawdown, and perhaps delayed Social Security filing. Being willing to work part-time in retirement is another variation on this idea. Yet, as attractive as working longer looks by the numbers, it’s a poor idea to make it the sole fallback plan, as many who plan to work longer are not able to.
Delay Social Security
This is another exceptionally powerful lever, allowing individuals to pick up an increase in benefits for every year they delay Social Security filing beyond their full retirement ages up until age 70. In order to pull this off, however, an individual may need to work longer or draw from a portfolio earlier.
Save more before retirement
The good news is that from a household budgetary standpoint, many individuals are best equipped to crank up their savings rates later in their careers. They’re often in their peak earnings years, and other big-ticket preretirement expenses, such as home purchases and college funding, may be in the rearview mirror.
The bad news is that with a shorter time horizon, those newly invested dollars will have less time to compound before they’ll need to withdraw them. That doesn’t mean that late-start retirees shouldn’t bother with additional contributions: Even an additional $5,000 invested per year, earning a modest average return of 4% for 10 years, would translate into more than an additional $60,000 in retirement.
Lower investment costs
This one’s a gimme. Lower mutual fund expenses are correlated with better returns, so why wouldn’t you work to bring your portfolio’s total costs down? Lowering costs can be particularly advantageous as you enlarge your portfolio’s stake in safer investments like bonds, where absolute investment returns, while better today than just a few years ago, are apt to be relatively low. Moreover, the differential between very strong- and very poor-performing investments can boil down to expenses.
Employ a flexible approach to portfolio withdrawals
Retirees seeking the same dollar amount, adjusted for inflation, year after year in retirement will generally want to be more conservative with their starting amount for portfolio withdrawals. Meanwhile, those who are willing to employ a dynamic withdrawal approach, varying withdrawals based on how their portfolios have performed, can generally take a higher starting withdrawal percentage, as illustrated in our team’s annual retirement-spending research.
___
This article was provided to The Associated Press by Morningstar. For more personal finance content, go to https://www.morningstar.com/personal-finance
Christine Benz is the director of personal finance and retirement planning at Morningstar.