Women 80% More Likely Than Men to be Impoverished in Retirement

A new report finds that women have substantially less income in retirement than men.

Women are far more likely than men to face financial hardship in retirement, according to a new report from the National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS) titled, “Shortchanged in Retirement: Continuing Challenges to Women’s Financial Future.”

Women age 65 and older have an average income that is 25% lower than men’s. By age 80, women’s income is 44% lower. In addition, women face higher medical expenses and are more likely to need more expensive long-term care. Consequently, women are 80% more likely than men to be impoverished at age 65 or older, while women age 75 to 79 are three times more likely to fall below the poverty level than men.

As to what percentage of female and male senior citizens are impoverished, in the 65-69 age group, it is 6% of men and 8% of women, according to NIRS. In the 70-74 age group, it is 5% of men and 8% of women. In the 75-79 age group, it is 4% of men and 12% of women, and among those 80 and older, it is 6% of men and 11% of women.

“It is well documented that the nation faces a retirement savings crisis, but the pain is particularly severe for women because we need a bigger retirement nest egg than men, thanks to our longer life expectancy,” says Diane Oakley, NIRS executive director and co-author of the report. “This new data is troubling. It shows that a woman’s nest egg is substantially smaller than a man’s and that we’re not making real headway toward closing the retirement gender gap.”

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

In 2010, men received an average retirement income of $17,856 from a pension, while women received $12,000, or 33% less. In 2014, according to Vanguard, the average amount that men had saved in a 401(k) was $36,875, compared to $24,446 for women, or 34% less. These gaps, NIRS says, are primarily due to the fact that in 2014, women earned an average of $0.79 for every dollar earned by a man.

NEXT: Women working longer to cover shortfall

The report also finds that the percentage of women between the ages of 55 and 64 in the workforce climbed from 53% in 2000 to 59% in 2015, which suggests, NIRS says, “women may be working longer in order to make up for lower retirement savings over their careers and to offset investment losses from the Great Recession.”

Women are also more likely than men to work part-time and to have shorter job tenure, making it more difficult for them to meet employers’ retirement plan eligibility requirements, according to NIRS.

Women who are widowed, divorced or over age 70 rely on Social Security benefits for a majority of their income, NIRS says. However, those who work in health care, education and public administration fields have higher incomes in retirement due to pension plans being prevalent in these industries.

NIRS recommends that women save more. The organization is also calling on policymakers to strengthen Social Security benefits for women and increase defined contribution plan eligibility for part-time workers.

The report is based on an analysis of the 2012 Survey of Income and Program Participation data from the United States Census. “Shortchanged in Retirement” can be downloaded here.

Convinced They Are Right, Investors Misuse TDFs

Target-date funds may not be a set-it-and-forget-it investment after all, according to a Financial Engines study.

A combination of investor overconfidence and a desire for greater diversification seem to be driving widespread misuse of target-date funds (TDFs). Although the vehicle is designed as a diversified, age-appropriate investment product for the entirety of an investor’s retirement assets, most participants don’t remain fully invested in them as their balances grow. The vehicle can solve a number of investing behaviors unless they are used incorrectly. But not everyone agrees that the strategy works as a set-it-and-forget-it, and other research shows that education around TDFs is still sorely needed.    

Financial Engines takes a look at why the most participants—only one-quarter (26%) are using the funds as intended—move away from TDFs over time. It’s not a lack of understanding, but investor overconfidence and a desire for greater diversification.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

About two-thirds (64%) of TDF investors hold only a portion of their investments (less than 90%) in the funds, potentially harming their investment returns compared with those who remain fully invested, according to “Not So Simple: Why Target-Date Funds Are Widely Misused by Retirement Investors.” Despite moving away from complete investment in a TDF, a substantial majority (81%) of participants said that they understood that TDFs are diversified by design and that they knew how they worked. By investing outside the TDF, participants were seeking something beyond what their TDF could offer.

NEXT: Participants seem skeptical about TDFs

“While the ‘set it and forget it’ promise of TDFs is appealing to some investors, most participants don’t forget it—they are actively investing away from the TDF in their portfolios,” explains Christopher Jones, chief investment officer of Financial Engines. “Based on behavior patterns of participants analyzed in this research, expecting most participants to stay put in a TDF over their working careers is simply unrealistic. These findings have clear implications for the long-term ability of TDFs to impact retirement outcomes in defined contribution plans.”

Partial TDF users tended to be older and overconfident in their investing ability. Sixty percent of partial TDF users believed that they could “beat the market” to achieve better investment returns than their target-date fund. Past studies have shown that this partial TDF approach can result in 2.11% lower median annual returns, net of fees, than holding all or almost all of an investor’s retirement assets in TDFs.

According to the report, participants who have added other funds to their TDF had greater confidence in how their accounts were invested compared with those fully invested in TDFs. By mixing TDFs with other investments, many participants fail to reap the full benefits of diversified, age-appropriate portfolios.

Ironically, only 23% of those fully invested in TDFs were “very confident” that their assets were appropriately invested compared with 29% of those holding only part of their investments in TDFs and 34% of those not at all invested in TDFs.

NEXT: Complex reasons behind investor behavior

Nearly two-thirds of partial TDF users (62%) cited a desire for greater diversification and a fear of “putting all of their eggs in one basket,” as the primary reasons for moving money away from target-date funds. More than basic investment diversification, these partial TDF users were seeking additional diversification across both investment funds and asset managers. Fifty-four percent cited a desire for greater personalization, especially regarding risk, while 58% of those decreasing their TDF allocation wanted greater personal management and advice on how best to manage their retirement assets.

Target-date funds tend to be more successful with younger investors who have low asset balances and less-complicated financial lives, Jones says. Older participants, on the other hand, with greater assets often seek the greater personalization and access to investing professionals that managed accounts provide. “Target-date funds only address the needs of a minority of participants,” Jones explains. “With a better understanding of how participants actually use target-date funds, plan sponsors have an opportunity to offer other forms of help that meet the needs of investors who are uncomfortable investing their entire retirement nest egg in a target-date fund.

“Prior to this research, it was easy to assume that participants didn’t fully understand how target-date funds worked,” Jones continues. “This research suggests that the drivers behind participant investing behavior are more complex than a simple lack of investing education. Older participants with higher balances require other forms of retirement help that more fully address what they are trying to achieve.”

“Not So Simple: Why Target-Date Funds Are Widely Misused by Retirement Investors” surveyed more than 1,000 full-time employees with access to TDFs in their employer-sponsored retirement plans.  The report can be downloaded from Financial Engines’ website.

«