Retirement Security: Most Households Approaching Retirement Have Low Savings
Published: 2015-05-12T00:00:00

Fast Facts:

Highlights:
section_title: Why GAO Did This Study
paragraphs: As baby boomers move into retirement each year, the Census Bureau projects that the age 65-and-older population will grow over 50 percent between 2015 and 2030. Several issues call attention to the retirement security of this sizeable population, including a shift in private-sector pension coverage from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans, longer life expectancies, and uncertainty about Social Security's long-term financial condition. In light of these developments, GAO was asked to review the financial status of workers approaching retirement and of current retirees.
GAO examined 1) the financial resources of workers approaching retirement and retirees and 2) the evidence that studies and surveys provide about retirement security for workers and retirees. To conduct this work, GAO analyzed household financial data, including retirement savings and income, from the Federal Reserve's 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances, reviewed academic studies of retirement savings adequacy, analyzed retirement-related questions from surveys, and interviewed retirement experts about retirement readiness. GAO found the data to be reliable for the purposes used in this report.
GAO received technical comments on a draft of this report from the Department of Labor and incorporated them as appropriate.
section_title: What GAO Found
paragraphs: Many retirees and workers approaching retirement have limited financial resources. About half of households age 55 and older have no retirement savings (such as in a 401(k) plan or an IRA). According to GAO's analysis of the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances, many older households without retirement savings have few other resources, such as a defined benefit (DB) plan or nonretirement savings, to draw on in retirement (see figure below). For example, among households age 55 and older, about 29 percent have neither retirement savings nor a DB plan, which typically provides a monthly payment for life. Households that have retirement savings generally have other resources to draw on, such as non-retirement savings and DB plans. Among those with some retirement savings, the median amount of those savings is about $104,000 for households age 55-64 and $148,000 for households age 65-74, equivalent to an inflation-protected annuity of $310 and $649 per month, respectively. Social Security provides most of the income for about half of households age 65 and older.
Studies and surveys GAO reviewed provide mixed evidence about the adequacy of retirement savings. Studies range widely in their conclusions about the degree to which Americans are likely to maintain their pre-retirement standard of living in retirement, largely because of different assumptions about how much income this goal requires. The studies generally found about one-third to two-thirds of workers are at risk of falling short of this target. In surveys, compared to current retirees, workers age 55 and older expect to retire later and a higher percentage plan to work during retirement. However, one survey found that about half of retirees said they retired earlier than planned due to health problems, changes at their workplace, or other factors, suggesting that many workers may be overestimating their future retirement income and savings. Surveys have also found that people age 55-64 are less confident about their finances in retirement than those who are age 65 or older.

section_title: Letter
paragraphs: Baby boomers, the youngest of whom are now in their 50s, are  approaching and reaching retirement in waves. According to the Census  Bureau, the age 65-and-over population in 2030 is projected to be about  74 million – more than 50 percent larger than in 2015, and representing  more than 20 percent of the projected total U.S. population. Several  issues call attention to the retirement security of this sizeable First, the  decades-long shift in the private sector away from defined benefit (DB)  plans (which typically pay lifetime annuity benefits in retirement) to  defined contribution (DC) plans (which require workers to accumulate  savings over their careers and manage withdrawals in retirement) means  that many workers and retirees need more savings to provide a secure  retirement. In 1991, private-sector DB plans had more participants than  DC plans. Since then, the number of private-sector DB plans has shrunk  considerably and the number of participants has remained flat, while the   Longer  number of participants in DC plans has expanded considerably.life expectancy means that many baby boomers will spend more years in  retirement than earlier cohorts and need their savings to last longer. In  addition, concerns about the long-term financial condition of Social  Security, which provides the base of financial support for retirees,  highlight the growing importance of Americans accumulating savings for  their retirement.
In light of these developments, you asked us to review the financial status  of workers approaching retirement and current retirees. We examined the  following questions: 1) What financial resources do workers approaching  retirement and current retirees have? and 2) What evidence do studies  and surveys provide about retirement security for workers and retirees?
To describe the financial resources of current and future retirees, we  examined financial information from the 2013 Survey of Consumer  Finances (SCF). Conducted by the Board of Governors of the Federal  Reserve System (Federal Reserve), the SCF is a triennial national survey  of assets and income. Throughout the report, we use the term “retirement  savings” to mean money accrued in account-based DC plans, such as  401(k) plans, and individual retirement accounts (IRAs). We do not  estimate the value of DB plans or include such an estimate in retirement  savings.financial assets as non-retirement savings.
Savings held outside of retirement accounts are included in  To analyze other evidence of retirement security, we reviewed several  studies of retirement adequacy and compared and contrasted their  methodologies and findings. These included academic studies based on  formal models of optimal saving behavior and consumption patterns,  studies that projected savings levels in retirement based on recent  savings data, and other reports examining the levels, adequacy, and  sources of retirement wealth. In addition, we interviewed authors of  studies and other retirement experts about retirement readiness. We also  reviewed relevant questions from surveys of retirees and workers  approaching retirement age to infer information about their experiences of  saving for and living in retirement. These questions included those  regarding financial well-being, confidence in being able to afford a  comfortable retirement, and expectations of when and how people plan to  retire. The surveys included the University of Michigan’s Health and  Retirement Study (HRS), the Federal Reserve’s Survey of Household  Economics and Decisionmaking, the Employee Benefit Research  Institute’s Retirement Confidence Survey, and other surveys.
For SCF, HRS, and other survey data used in this report, we reviewed  methodological documentation and, when appropriate, interviewed  individuals knowledgeable about the data and conducted electronic  testing. Based on this, we found the data to be reliable for the purposes  used in this report.
For the purpose of this report, we discuss households and workers  nearing retirement age, from age 55-64, to isolate near retirees and  determine retirement readiness, though some of this group may in fact be  retired. We discuss the age group 65-74 to examine retirees in the first  stage of retirement, although some members of this group may not be  retired. Finally, we discuss the age group 75 and older, most of whom we  expect to be retired. (A more detailed description of our scope and  methodology is provided in appendix I.)
We conducted this performance audit from April, 2014 to May, 2015 in  accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.  Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain  sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our  findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that  the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and  conclusions based on our audit objectives.
subsections: section_title: Background
paragraphs: Income in retirement may come from several sources, including (1) Social  Security, (2) payments from employment-based DB plans, (3) savings in  retirement plans, such as in a 401(k) plan or IRA, including the return on   and (4) other sources, including non-retirement savings,  these savings;home equity, and wages.  (1) Social Security: Social Security pays benefits to retirees, their  spouses, and their survivors, as well as to some disabled workers.  According to the Social Security Administration (SSA), as of 2012, 86  percent of households age 65 and older received Social Security benefits.  Benefits are paid to workers who meet requirements for the time they  have worked in “covered employment” – jobs through which workers pay  Social Security taxes, which cover about 96 percent of U.S. workers,  according to SSA. Workers can claim benefits starting at age 62 (or  when they become disabled), but for retiring workers the monthly benefit  they receive increases the longer they delay receiving them, up until age  70.history and are progressive, meaning that Social Security replaces a  higher percentage of earnings for lower-income workers and their  dependents than for higher-income workers.
Monthly Social Security benefits are based on a worker’s earnings  Social Security benefits offer two main advantages: they are a monthly  stream of payments that continue until death and they adjust annually for  cost-of-living increases. According to the 2014 report from the Social  Security Board of Trustees, the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance (OASI)  trust fund from which Social Security benefits are paid is projected to  become depleted in 2034, at which point continuing income is projected  to be sufficient to cover just 75 percent of scheduled benefits. This projection raises the possibility of changes to Social Security benefits,  taxation, or both before the depletion date.  (2) Defined Benefit Plans: these plans are “traditional” employment-based  pension plans that offer benefits typically determined by a formula based  on factors specified by the plan, such as salary and years of service. DB  plans typically offer pension benefits in the form of an annuity that  provides a monthly payment for life, although some plans also offer a  lump-sum distribution option. An annuity can help to protect a retiree  against risks, including the risk of outliving one’s assets (longevity risk),  and may also offer survivor benefits. However, DB plans carry the risk  that a plan sponsor may freeze or terminate the plan. If a private-sector  plan terminates with insufficient assets to pay promised benefits, the  Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a federal government  corporation, provides plan insurance and pays promised benefits subject  to certain statutory limits, which may result in some beneficiaries getting  reduced benefits.  (3) Retirement Savings: Introduced over 30 years ago, two primary types  of retirement savings vehicles currently exist: employment-sponsored DC  plans (such as 401(k) plans) and IRAs. For both types, benefits accrue in  the form of account balances, which grow from contributions made by  workers (and sometimes by their employers) and investment returns.  Examples of employer-sponsored DC plans include 401(k) plans, 403(b)  plans, and similar plans for which employers can offer payroll deductions,  employer contributions to employee accounts, or both. Individuals can  also save for retirement through IRAs, which allow individuals to make  contributions for retirement without participating in an employment- sponsored plan. DC plans and IRAs provide tax advantages, portability  of savings, and transparency of known account balances. However, they  also place the primary responsibility on individuals to participate in,  contribute to, and manage their accounts throughout their working  careers, and to manage their savings throughout retirement in order to  keep from running out of money.
For 2015, individuals can contribute up to $5,500 in IRAs ($6,500 for those age 50 or  older), while the contribution limit for 401(k) plans is $18,000 ($24,000 for those age 50 or  older). Contributions to 401(k) plans and traditional IRAs are not subject to tax when made  (26 U.S.C. §§ 402(e)(3) and 219(a) and (e), respectively); distributions or withdrawals of  principal or earnings from them are subject to tax (26 U.S.C. §§ 402(a) and 408(c)(1),  respectively). Contributions to Roth IRAs are not tax-deductible, but after one has been  established for 5 years, upon reaching age 59½, an individual may make withdrawals of  principal or earnings not subject to tax. 26 U.S.C. § 408A(c) and (d). revenue loss associated with these accounts included $51.8 billion for DC  plans and $16.2 billion for IRAs.
Employment-based retirement plan coverage, especially in the private  sector, has shifted from DB to DC plans. According to the Department of  Labor, as of 2012 private-sector DB plans had almost 40 million  participants, while DC plans had about 91 million. In contrast, in 1975,  about three-quarters of private-sector pension participants had DB plans,  and half of all participants in 1990 had DB plans. Reserve data, as of the third quarter of 2014, U.S. DB plans held about  $11.2 trillion in assets, IRA assets totaled about $7.3 trillion and DC  assets accounted for about $6.2 trillion. Rollovers from 401(k) plans and  other employment-sponsored plans are the predominant source of  contributions to IRAs.
These figures may double-count individuals who have both a DB and DC plan. U.S.  Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, “Private Pension Plan  Bulletin Historical Tables and Graphs.” December 2014.
Considering imputed rent income treats owner-occupied housing neutrally compared to  renter-occupied housing. For example, consider two homeowners who each live in their  homes and pay a $1,000 mortgage. If they moved into each other’s home and received  $1,000 per month rent, that $1,000 would be considered income, even though nothing has  changed about either household’s balance sheet or net expenses. an important source of income for some households with a member age  65 or older, especially for those with a spouse younger than 62 who is not  yet eligible to receive Social Security benefits.
section_title: About Half of Older Households Have No Retirement Savings, and Many Rely on Social Security
paragraphs: According to our analysis of data from the 2013 SCF, 52 percent of  households age 55 and older have no retirement savings in a DC plan or  IRA, and Social Security provides most of the retirement income for about  half of households age 65 and older. Among the 48 percent of  households age 55 and older with some retirement savings, the median  amount is approximately $109,000–commensurate to an inflation- protected annuity of $405 per month at current rates for a 65-year-old.  Households that have sizeable retirement savings are more likely than  households with lower saving to have other resources, including a higher  likelihood of expecting retirement income from a DB plan. Nearly 30  percent of households age 55 and older have neither retirement savings  nor a DB plan (see fig. 1). Social Security remains the largest component  of household income in retirement, making up an average of 52 percent  of household income for those age 65 and older.
subsections: section_title: Over Half of Households Age 55 to 64 Have Little or No Retirement Savings, and Many of These Have Few Other Financial Resources
paragraphs: About 55 percent of households age 55-64 have less than $25,000 in  retirement savings, including 41 percent who have zero (see fig. 2 for  additional detail). Most of the households in this age group have some  other resources or benefits from a DB plan, but 27 percent of this age  group have neither retirement savings nor a DB plan.
Among households age 55-64, the 41 percent with no retirement savings  have few other financial resources but they are less likely to have debt  than those with retirement savings.have less than $25,000 in total financial assets, such as in savings  accounts or non-retirement investments. Compared to those with  retirement savings, these households have about a third of the median  income, about one-fifteenth of the median net worth, and are less likely to  be covered by a DB plan (see table 1). Regarding debt, households  without retirement savings are less likely to have debt than households  with savings (about 70 percent compared to 84 percent). Their debt levels  are comparable, though, as about 20 percent of households from each   For example, around 85 percent  category have debt amounts that are more than twice their annual  income.
Perhaps of greatest concern are the 27 percent of all households age 55- 64 that have neither retirement savings nor a DB plan. Their median net  worth is about $9,000, and 91 percent have less than $25,000 in  financial assets. These households’ median home equity is about  $53,000,savings or a DB plan have.   which is less than half of what households with retirement  Not surprisingly, they have approximate median income of $21,000.  About half of these households had wage or salary income, compared  to 82 percent of households age 55-64 with some retirement savings or a  DB plan. This indicates that a smaller portion of these households are  likely working, which may limit their ability to accumulate retirement  savings. About 46 percent had Social Security income, indicating that  they may have claimed before the full retirement age and would receive  reduced monthly benefits.
subsections: section_title: Six In Ten Households Age 55- 64 Have Some Retirement Savings
paragraphs: For the 59 percent of households age 55-64 with some retirement  savings, we estimate that the median amount saved is about $104,000,  which is equivalent to an insured, inflation-protected annuity of $310 per  month for a 60-year-old. While about 15 percent of these households  have retirement savings amounts over $500,000, 11 percent have  retirement savings below $10,000 and 24 percent have savings of less  than $25,000 (see table 2 for additional detail). A savings amount of  $25,000 is equivalent to an insured, inflation-protected annuity of $74 per  month for a 60-year-old.
Both retirement savings and DB plan coverage rises with income levels  for age 55-64 households (see table 3). Across income quintiles, a  similar percentage of households have a paid-off mortgage and debt  levels above twice their income, whereas retirement savings and DB plan  coverage generally increase with income.
section_title: Half of Households Age 65-74 Have No Retirement Savings, and Social Security is the Largest Source of Retirement Income for This Age Group About Half of Households Age 65-74 Have No Retirement Savings
paragraphs: Turning to older households, retirement savings among those age 65-74  shows a distribution similar to those age 55-64, though a larger proportion  has no retirement savings (52 percent).about 10 percent have more than $500,000 in savings.
Similar to the younger group,  Another similarity is that many households age 65-74 with no retirement  savings have few other resources to draw upon in retirement as  measured by our indicators (see table 4). Compared to those in the same  age group with retirement savings, households without retirement savings  have about one-seventh the net worth, and fewer have a DB plan. Unlike  households age 55-64, the debt profile for households without retirement  savings is not substantially better than for households with some  retirement savings.
Similar to households age 55-64, a closer look at the 27 percent of  households age 65-74 with no retirement savings and no DB plan reveals  that they have very low levels of resources to draw upon for retirement  income. This group has a median net worth of about $57,000, which is  around one-sixth the net worth of other households of this age. Compared  to households with some retirement savings or a DB plan, households in  this age group generally have lower home ownership rates (about 67  percent compared to 93 percent) and less home equity when they do own  homes (median home equity is about $100,000, compared to  $148,000).
subsections: section_title: Households Age 65-74 with Some Retirement Savings
paragraphs: For the 48 percent of households age 65-74 that have some retirement  savings, we estimate that the median amount is $148,000, comparable  to an insured, inflation-protected annuity of $649 per month for a 70-year- old at current rates. About one in five of these households has  retirement savings amounts over $500,000, while 16 percent have  savings less than $25,000 (see table 5 for additional detail).
For all households age 65-74, median annual income is about $47,000  and Social Security makes up on average 44 percent of income for  households in this age group, larger than any other income source. About  90 percent of all households in this age range receive some Social  Security income, and the median amount they receive is approximately   About 41 percent of households in this age range rely on  $19,000.Social Security for over half of their income, while 14 percent rely on  Social Security for more than 90 percent of their income. While Social  Security is, on average, the largest component of household income in  retirement, other sources also play a role in funding retirement for  households age 65-74. Income from work and pension-based annuities,  such as DB plans, contribute about a fifth of household income each, on  average. Distributions from retirement savings make up a relatively small  portion of average household income at 4 percent. Because Social  Security and DB plans represent a relatively large portion of retiree  income, it follows that much of the household income for this age group  has some assurance that it will last a lifetime.
Among households age 65-74, the prevalence of both retirement savings  and DB plans generally increases with income (see table 6). As with the  younger age group, not only do a larger proportion of higher-income  households have some retirement savings, but the amount they have  saved is also larger. Similarly, the annual amount they receive from their  DB plan increases with income.
Social Security makes up a larger share of household income for  households with no retirement savings, which is not surprising as these  households have lower incomes. The 52 percent of households age 65- 74 with no retirement savings rely primarily on Social Security for income  in retirement, as it makes up 57 percent of their household income on  average (see figure 3). These households have median income of  approximately $29,000, and 25 percent of them rely on Social Security for  more than 90 percent of their income. Those in the same age range  who have some retirement savings have a median income of $76,000.  Social Security makes up on average 31 percent of income for those with  savings, about the same percentage that wage or salary income  contributes. Reflecting Social Security’s progressive benefit structure,  86 percent of those in the lowest income quintile receive more than half of  their household income from Social Security, while 66 and 44 percent of  those in the second and third quintiles do, respectively.
Households age 65-74 with no retirement savings or DB plan have about  one-third the income of other households in the same age group and are  even more likely to rely on Social Security. Specifically, their median  income is about $19,000 compared to $60,000 for the other group. Only  about a quarter of these households have wage income, compared to 49  percent of other households in this age range, while 45 percent of them  relied on Social Security for over 90 percent of their income, compared to  3 percent for households with either some retirement savings or a DB  plan.
section_title: Most Households Age 75 and Older Have No Retirement Savings and Social Security Provides Most Household Retirement Income on Average
paragraphs: Households age 75 and older have even fewer retirement assets than  younger households, and only 29 percent have retirement savings. About  35 percent have neither retirement savings nor a DB plan, though a larger  percentage of households in this age group have a DB plan than those  nearing retirement (55 percent compared to 40 percent for households  age 55-64). Of those households that have savings, the median savings  is approximately $69,000, which is commensurate to an insured,  inflation-protected annuity of $467 per month at current rates for an 80- year-old.
Social Security provides the bulk (on average 61 percent) of household  income for those 75 and older (see fig. 4). The median income for  households age 75 and older is about $27,000, and the median Social  Security income is approximately $17,000. When compared to younger  households age 65-74, Social Security makes up a larger share of  household income for retirees age 75 and older, with 62 percent of these  households relying on Social Security for more than 50 percent of their  income, and 22 percent relying on Social Security for more than 90  percent of their income. Moreover, according to Census data, about 43  percent of people 65 years and older would have incomes below the  poverty level if they did not receive Social Security.
As with the younger age groups, households age 75 and older with no  retirement savings have fewer resources based on our indicators than  those with some retirement savings, as one might expect. For example,  their median net worth is about $127,000, compared to $435,000 for   Additionally,  same-aged households with some retirement savings.households with no retirement savings have lower homeownership rates  than other households in the same age range (75 percent compared to 93  percent) and a smaller proportion own their homes outright (55 percent  compared to 74 percent). A larger share of households in this age range  have paid off their mortgages than have younger groups.
Similarly, households age 75 and older with no retirement savings have  lower median incomes than those with some retirement savings.  Specifically, they have about half the median income as households with  some retirement savings (about $24,000, compared to $47,000). Retirement savings distributions contribute, on average, about 17 percent  of household income among those with some retirement savings, adding  a median amount of $4,000 to these households’ income. Households  with retirement savings in this age group obtain just under half their  income from Social Security on average (46 percent).
We are 95 percent confident that the median income for households with no retirement  savings is between $22,041 and $25,015, while it is between $39,833 and $53,729 for  other households.
section_title: Studies and Surveys Provide Mixed Evidence on the Adequacy of Retirement Savings among Workers and Retirees Studies of Retirement Savings and Income Adequacy Conclude Different Things about U.S. Retirement Security, Largely Because of Different Savings Targets
paragraphs: Economists broadly agree that a conceptual benchmark measure for  adequate retirement saving is an amount that will, along with other  sources of retirement income, allow a household to maintain its pre- retirement standard of living into retirement. However, there is no  consensus about how much income this standard requires. Economists  and financial planners generally agree that many retirees do not need to  replace 100 percent of working income in order to maintain their standard  of living because most retirees probably have reduced expenses—for  example, no longer needing to provide for payroll taxes, retirement  saving, and commuting expenses—relative to when they were working.  Other big expenses that many households may face while working but not  while retired include the cost of raising children (who are likely grown and  financially independent by the parents’ retirement age) and of housing if  homeowners pay off their mortgage by retirement. Conversely, health  costs may represent a greater expense for a household in retirement than  while working.
Setting a specific target for, and even calculating, the “replacement rate”– a household’s post-retirement income as a percentage of pre-retirement  income–required to maintain a household’s standard of living requires  many complicated assumptions. There is broad agreement over some  aspects of replacement rates, at least in concept if not necessarily in  practical application to calculations. Because higher-income households  tend to pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes and save more  for retirement while working, they generally require a lower replacement  rate in retirement when these expenses decline; for the opposite reasons,  lower-income households generally require higher replacement rates. For  these reasons, there is no single replacement rate that represents a  “success” for retirement income.
Several studies have attempted to evaluate the adequacy of retirement  income or project the likelihood of current workers having sufficient  retirement income. Some of these studies attempt to judge the  retirement readiness of workers by using data on consumption, income,  and wealth for working-age households and projecting a replacement rate  at retirement; they then compare this projection to a target replacement  rate that they estimate to be enough to maintain a standard of living in  retirement. As Table 7 shows, different studies use different replacement  rate or other benchmarks for retirement income adequacy. The Center for  Retirement Research at Boston College produces a National Retirement  Risk Index (NRRI) based on data from the 2013 SCF and concluded that  52 percent of households faced risk of having insufficient retirement  income to maintain their standard of living. This percentage is almost the  same as the one calculated from the 2010 SCF and is up from 44 percent  in 2007. However, at-risk percentages vary considerably by sub-group  in the NRRI. For example, Boston College calculates that 60 percent of  households with income in the lowest third of the income distribution are  at risk, and 43 percent of households in the highest-third are at risk of  having insufficient retirement income to maintain their pre-retirement  standard of living. The NRRI also finds a greater percentage of  households age 30-39 at risk than age 50-59.
The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) uses its Retirement  Security Projection Model to project the percentage of workers at risk of  having retirement income that is inadequate to cover minimum retirement  expenditures.falling short of target retirement income. However, EBRI’s projections  show a much higher percentage of lower-income households at risk of  falling short on retirement income: 12.5 percent of those born 1948-1954  in the highest-income quartile compared to 86.8 percent of the same  cohort in the lowest-income quartile. In a 2012 study, Aon Hewitt projects  savings of its sample against a target 85 percent replacement rate and  estimates that 85 percent of workers will fail to hit this target by age 65.  Even when focusing on “full career” workers who have the potential to  contribute to a retirement account for at least 30 years, 71 percent of  these workers still are projected to fall short of the benchmark.
EBRI’s projections show about 44 percent of their sample  The 2015 National Institute on Retirement Security (NIRS), instead of  using a projection model, uses the 2013 SCF to compare net worth  among workers to financial industry-suggested savings benchmarks at  different ages. NIRS finds that approximately two-thirds of workers have  savings below the suggested benchmark, enough for an 85 percent  replacement rate target at age 67. A 2012 Urban Institute study focuses  on Baby Boom workers and retirees and sets a 75 percent replacement  rate target, but measures retirement income at age 70. Depending on  alternative assumptions they made about whether retirees annuitized  retirement assets and how they calculated pre-retirement income, they  find about 30 to 40 percent of their sample fell short of their replacement  rate target.
Other studies have somewhat more optimistic conclusions about whether  American workers are likely to have enough income in retirement to  maintain their standard of living. A 2006 study by Scholz, Seshadri, and  Khitatrakun uses the Health and Retirement Study to compare individuals’  earnings and savings history against wealth predictions of a lifecycle  model over a household’s lifetime, with different targets for different  household characteristics.have savings below the predictions of their model. Their findings  emphasize the impact of children and the progressive benefit structure of  Social Security, which replaces a higher percentage of income for lower- income earners than higher-income earners, as key factors explaining  how such a high percentage of households can reach retirement income   They find that only 16 percent of households  adequacy.Khitatrakun find that the percentage of households with adequate  retirement income declines with earnings: about 30 percent of lowest- decile earners undersave in their estimation, compared to 5 percent of the  highest decile. A 2012 study by Hurd and Rohwedder similarly uses a  lifecycle framework that estimates consumption paths of Health and  Retirement Study households, based on consumption in the years prior to  retirement, and projects which households have enough financial  resources to maintain this consumption path until death. The studies by  Hurd and Rohwedder and Scholz, Seshadri, and Khitatrakun assume that  households value consumption later in retirement less than earlier, in part  reflecting the declining probability of being alive later in life;. This  assumption lowers consumption targets later in retirement than they  would under an assumption that households smooth their consumption  throughout retirement. Hurd and Rohwedder found that 23 percent of  married couples and 51 percent of single persons fall short of these  targets. However, they find that single households and those with less  education are more likely to be unprepared for retirement by the study’s  targets.
However, even with these factors, Scholz, Seshadri, and  A 2012 study from the Investment Company Institute (ICI) and a 2014  study by Andrew Biggs and Sylvester Schieber also express doubt that  Americans are not saving adequately for retirement, although they do not  set an adequacy benchmark based on replacement rate or standard of  living targets against which to measure household savings. ICI argues  that a “five-tiered pyramid” of retirement assets, made up of Social  Security, employment-based DB and DC pensions, IRAs, housing equity,  and other financial assets, has successfully provided for retirees.  However, while they find that, based on 2010 data, most near-retiree  households across income groups have some assets in an employment- sponsored plan or an IRA, they also find that the percentage of such  households rises with income: about half of households with income less  than $30,000 to about 95 percent of households with income of at least  $80,000. ICI also cites a lower percentage of 65-and-older Americans  living in poverty than the overall population as evidence of success with  the retirement system. They conclude that “on average” households are  able to maintain their standard of living in retirement.
The Biggs and Schieber study argues that reported replacement rates  published in prior Social Security Trustees reports understated the extent  to which Social Security benefits replace earnings because Social  Security uses lifetime earnings (instead of final-year earnings) and  indexes earnings to average wages instead of average prices. These  assumptions, they argue, overstate income during working years, and  thus, published estimates understate how much Social Security benefits  replace as a percentage of working income. Biggs and Schieber, like  Scholz, Seshadri, and Khitatrakun, also argue that some studies set too- high replacement rate targets because they ignore the favorable  economic impact of children leaving the household.
Assumptions about income targets and methodology help drive the  conclusions of these different studies. Some considerations in evaluating  all of these studies include:  How income and expenses may change during retirement. One limitation  of replacement rate calculations is that they suggest a fixed amount of  retirement income and expenses. In reality, retirement income may vary  throughout retirement, depending in part on the degree to which a  household’s income is annuitized. To the extent that retirees have to  manage savings in lump-sum form, such as in an IRA or DC plan, they  face risk from investment returns and outliving their resources, among  other factors. Even annuitized income, if not adjusted for inflation, may  lose purchasing power, especially over longer retirement periods. To the  extent that Social Security makes up a significant portion of retirement  income, as we find earlier in this report, the amount and purchasing  power of income throughout retirement may be more predictable, as  would annuitized income from a DB plan or any other annuitized wealth (if  inflation adjusted). Similarly, expenses, especially health care, may be  neither steady nor predictable in retirement. Finally, for women  approaching or in retirement, becoming divorced, widowed or  unemployed can have detrimental effects on their income security.
How the impact of children on target income may be complicated. To the  extent that children become independent long before parents retire,  households approaching retirement may already have adjusted to higher  levels of consumption, possibly raising their standard of living and  required replacement rates. In retirement, the extent to which grown  children may remain partially dependent on retired parents also would  lessen the extent to which the cost of raising children is a foregone  expense in retirement.
How income from Social Security may change. The 2014 Social Security  Trustees; Report projects the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Trust  Fund, which pays Social Security retirement benefits, to become insolvent  in 2034, at which point revenues are projected to be enough to cover 75  percent of scheduled benefits.insolvency or because of reforms to extend the solvency of the trust fund,  this could represent a major challenge to households who rely heavily on  Social Security for retirement income. Similarly, if reforms raised payroll  taxes on workers, this could affect their ability to save for retirement.  Further, as the normal retirement age continues to rise for receiving full  benefits (gradually from 65 for beneficiaries born in 1937 or earlier to 67  for those born in 1960 or later), future Social Security replacement rates  will fall unless workers delay claiming until they are older.
section_title: Surveys Show That Workers Age 55 and Older Approaching Retirement May Overestimate Their Ability to Earn Future Income
paragraphs: Surveys indicate that workers age 55 and older generally plan to retire at  an older age and work more in retirement than current retirees actually  did. These plans may indicate that the current cohort of workers nearing  retirement will in fact work longer than current retirees did. However, if  these expectations for retiring later prove unrealistic or do not come to  fruition, workers’ retirement security may be at risk, since workers may  have fewer years to work and save for retirement than they are planning.
According to the 2015 Employee Benefit Research Institute’s (EBRI)  Retirement Confidence Survey, among workers 55 and older, nearly half  say they plan to retire at 66 or older, while 14 percent of current retirees  report having done so (see fig. 5). Gallup polling indicates that plans to  retire later may be associated with low confidence in retirement savings.  In a 2013 Gallup survey, baby boomers who strongly disagree with the  statement “you have enough money to do everything you want to do” plan  to retire at 73, while those who strongly agree with the statement plan to  retire at 66.expectations also vary by household income, with workers from lower- income households more likely to plan to retire at older ages than workers  from higher-income households. Furthermore, among pre-retirees age 45  and older, 31 percent of those making less than $50,000 a year, 14  percent of those making between $50,000 and $99,000 a year, and 7  percent of those making $100,000 or more a year do not plan to retire.  Among those who said they do not plan to retire, the dominant reason  was the expectation of never having enough money to retire (55 percent).
According to a 2013 Society of Actuaries survey, retirement   In the EBRI study, where respondents could report multiple  Other events outside a worker’s control, such as the 2007-9 recession,  may have caused workers to change their retirement plans. The  recession had disparate effects on people approaching retirement,  causing some to retire earlier than expected, likely when they could not  find employment, and others to retire later, likely because their retirement  savings balances had dropped. According to a 2013 Federal Reserve  study, 38 percent of people age 55-64 and 47 percent of people age 65- 74 who had not yet retired reported that they delayed retirement since the  recession, and 21 percent of people age 55-64 and 13 percent of people  65-74 who had retired reported retiring earlier than planned.
The 2013 survey sponsored by the Society of Actuaries found that current  workers age 45 and older expect similar sources of income in retirement  as current retirees are receiving, with a few key exceptions. Specifically,  in one exception, 59 percent of pre-retirees expect to receive income from  a DB plan while 73 percent of retirees receive income from a DB plan; in  another, 81 percent of pre-retirees expect income from an employment- sponsored retirement savings plan, while 53 percent of retirees receive  this. Most notably, 57 percent of pre-retirees expect employment,  including self-employment, to constitute a source of income in retirement,  while 28 percent of retirees report having this.
The Federal Reserve survey also suggests that many workers may  unrealistically expect to continue working as long as possible or transition  to new work when they “retire”. Only 18 percent of workers approaching  retirement who have done some planning for retirement expect to stop  work completely at retirement, while 59 percent of workers plan to work  as long as possible, or plan to shift jobs in retirement by finding a different  job or working for themselves. This contrasts with the experiences of  retirees, among whom 29 percent shifted jobs in retirement (see fig. 6).
section_title: People Age 55-64 Are Less Confident about Their Financial Well-Being in Retirement Than Those over 65
paragraphs: As compared to people age 55-64, many people over 65 report being  able to manage financially. According to a Federal Reserve survey, 72  percent of people age 65-74 and 84 percent of people 75 and older say  they are managing okay or better financially, while only 59 percent of  people age 55-64 report they are managing okay or better financially.
Asked among workers who have done some planning for retirement. Retirees were able  to report multiple responses for this question.
While most people 65 and over have confidence in their retirement  security, levels of confidence among people approaching retirement age  are lower. According to an older EBRI survey, conducted in 2014, 69  percent of retirees say that their experience in retirement with respect to  their finances has been about the same or better than they expected it to  be. According to the 2013 Survey of Consumer Finances, two-thirds of  households age 65-74 say their received or expected retirement income  is at least enough to maintain living standards (66 percent). On the other  hand, just over half (52 percent) of people age 55-64 say retirement  income they expect or receive will be enough to maintain living  standards.
However, confidence in affording certain types of expenses in retirement  varies, suggesting that expenses such as for long-term care may be a  cause of concern for retiree financial security. According to the EBRI  study, 82 percent of retirees are very or somewhat confident they will  have enough money to take care of basic expenses in retirement, 78  percent are very or somewhat confident they will have enough to take  care of medical expenses during retirement, and 59 percent are very or  somewhat confident they will have enough money to pay for long-term  care should they need it during retirement.
Moreover, poverty rates are higher for people approaching retirement and  people who are 75 and older. According to the Current Population  Survey, about 8 percent of people age 65-74 and 11 percent of those age  75-84 are in poverty, which is also the poverty rate for people age 55-64.  Twelve percent of people 85 and older are in poverty.Supplemental Poverty Measure, an alternate poverty measure, found that  14 percent of people age 55-64 are in poverty according to this   The  definition. For people 65-74, this number decreases to 12 percent, and  then increases for the oldest Americans: 17 percent for people between  75-84, and 20 percent for people 85 and older. Lastly, according to the  HRS, many retirees say that “not having enough income to get by” is a  concern, with 41 percent of retirees saying that this “bothers or worries”  them a lot.
While 23 percent of retirees report working for pay since they retired,  according to the 2015 EBRI study, the reasons people work in retirement  vary, including that they enjoy working (83 percent) and want to stay  active and involved (79 percent). Some other reasons include wanting  money to buy extras (54 percent), needing money to make ends meet (52  percent), a decrease in the value of their savings or investments (38  percent), or keeping health insurance or other benefits (34 percent).
section_title: Agency Comments
paragraphs: We provided a draft of this report to the Department of Labor, the  Department of the Treasury, and the Social Security Administration for  review and comment. The Department of Labor provided technical  comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Department of the  Treasury and the Social Security Administration did not have comments.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce the contents of  this report earlier, we plan no further distribution until 30 days from the  report date. At that time, we will send copies of this report to the  Secretary of Labor, the Secretary of the Treasury, and the Commissioner  of Social Security, and other interested parties. In addition, the report will  be available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov.
If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact  me at (202) 512-7215 or jeszeckc@gao.gov. Contact points for our  Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on  the last page of this report. GAO staff who made contributions to this  report are listed in appendix III.
section_title: Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology
paragraphs: To analyze retirement savings and income for workers approaching  retirement and for those of retirement age, we answered the following  questions:  1.  What financial resources do workers approaching retirement and  current retirees have?  2.  What evidence do studies and surveys provide about retirement  security for workers and retirees?
subsections: section_title: Retirement Financial Resources
paragraphs: To describe the financial resources of near and current retirees, we  examined financial information from the 2013 Survey of Consumer  Finances (SCF). The SCF is a triennial survey of household assets and  income from the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System  (Federal Reserve). The 2013 SCF surveyed 6,026 U.S. households about  their pensions, incomes, asset holdings and debts, and demographic  information. The SCF is conducted using a dual-frame sample design.  One part of the design is a standard, multistage area-probability design,  while the second part is a special over-sample of relatively wealthy  households. This is done in order to accurately capture financial  information about the population at large as well as characteristics  specific to the relatively wealthy. The two parts of the sample are adjusted  for sample nonresponse and combined using weights to make estimates  from the survey data representative of households overall. In addition, the  SCF excludes people included in the Forbes magazine list of the 400  wealthiest people in the United States. Furthermore, the 2013 SCF  dropped 11 observations from the public data set that had net worth at  least equal to the minimum level needed to qualify for the Forbes list.
We found the 2013 SCF to be reliable for the purposes of our report.  While the SCF is a widely used federal data source, we conducted an  assessment to ensure its reliability. Specifically, we reviewed related  documentation and internal controls, spoke with agency officials, and  conducted electronic testing. When we learned that particular estimates  were not reliable for our purposes–such as estimates of future DB  income–or had sample sizes too small to produce reliable estimates, we  did not use them.
Nonetheless, the SCF and other surveys that are based on self-reported  data are subject to nonsampling error, including the inability to get  information about all sample cases; difficulties of definition; differences in  the interpretation of questions; respondents’ inability or unwillingness to  provide correct information; and errors made in collecting, recording,  coding, and processing data. These nonsampling errors can influence the  accuracy of information presented in the report, although the magnitude  of their effect is not known.
Estimates from the SCF are also subject to some sampling error since the  2013 SCF sample is one of a large number of random samples that might  have been drawn. Since each possible sample could have provided  different estimates, we express our confidence in the precision of the  sample results as 95 percent confidence intervals. These intervals would  contain the actual population values for 95 percent of the samples that  could have been drawn. In this report, we report percentage or other  numerical estimates along with their 95 percent confidence intervals.  Unless otherwise noted, all percentage estimates based on the SCF have  95 percent confidence intervals that are within 3 percentage points, and  all numerical estimates other than percentages have 95 percent  confidence intervals that are within 5 percent of the estimate itself. All  financial figures reported using SCF data are in 2013 dollars and most  are rounded to the nearest thousand dollars.
Where possible, we relied on variable definitions used for Federal  Reserve publications using the SCF. For example, we used the Federal  Reserve’s variable for age, which is the age of the household head. We  also used the Federal Reserve’s variable for retirement savings, which  included assets accrued in defined contribution (DC) plans such as 401(k)  plans as well as individual retirement accounts (IRA). We do not include  the value of defined benefit (DB) plans, “traditional” pension plans that  provide benefits based on a formula and typically pay lifetime benefits as  an annuity unless a household has taken the benefit as a lump sum and  converted it into an IRA or other account balance. Retirement savings  also does not include savings held outside of a retirement account, which  is included in financial assets as non-retirement savings. Similarly, we  used other Federal Reserve variables to describe additional resources  asked about in the SCF, such as home ownership, financial assets  (including savings in and outside of a retirement account), debt, and net  worth. This measure of net worth does not include the total value of  anticipated DB plan or Social Security benefits, in part because it is  difficult to determine the present value of these benefits.
An important exception to our use of Federal Reserve variables is our  estimation of household income: in order to separately estimate key  components of retirement income, such as Social Security and DB plans, we developed our own variable for income while attempting to mirror the  Federal Reserve’s income variable as closely as possible. We consulted  with Federal Reserve staff to inform our calculations of Social Security  and DB plan income. One limitation to these income calculations is that  Social Security and DB plan income are for the respondent and his or her  spouse/partner for 2013, whereas other income is reported for the entire  family for 2012. However, we believe the estimates are reliable for our  purposes. For example, 88 percent of households age 65 and older  consist only of the respondent and his or her spouse/partner. Further, we  conducted electronic testing and found no statistically significant  difference between estimates of income using our variables and the  Federal Reserve’s variables, either in aggregate or by various age  groups. When describing the average share of household income from a  particular source, we divided for each household the amount from that  source by the household’s total income, and reported the average across  all households.
Income from DB plans includes traditional pensions with lifetime benefits and annuitized  DC plans. In 2011, we found that few retirees with DC plans chose or purchased an  annuity (GAO-11-400). the plan.payments that increase each year up to 3 percent, based on inflation.  Annuities purchased through other channels may provide different levels  of lifetime income. If a household purchased an annuity without inflation  protection, the initial amount of income would be higher. Similarly,  different assumptions about the interest rate would change the annuity  amount. For example, the calculator currently uses an interest rate of two  percent as of the calculation date, though a higher interest rate would  increase the annuity amount.
The Thrift Savings Plan offers an annuity with monthly  Defining retirement for Americans is not without difficulty, as retirement is  a nebulous concept and different people may define retirement for  themselves differently. Self-defined retirees may work or not claim Social  Security benefits, while people who do not identify as retired may claim  Social Security benefits or not work. For the purpose of this report, we  discuss households and workers nearing retirement age as 55-64 to  isolate near retirees and determine retirement readiness, though some of  this group may in fact be retired. We discuss the age group 65-74 to  examine retirees in the first stage of retirement, although some members  of this group may not be retired. Finally, we discuss the age group 75 and  older, most of whom we expect to be retired.
section_title: Studies and Surveys on Retirement Security
paragraphs: To analyze other evidence of retirement security, we reviewed several  studies of retirement adequacy and compared and contrasted their  methodologies and findings. These included academic studies based on  formal models of optimal saving behavior and consumption patterns,  those that projected savings levels in retirement based on recent savings  data, and other reports examining the levels, adequacy, and sources of  retirement wealth. We selected savings projections models that we had  familiarity with from past GAO reports, and chose other studies and  reports based on recommendations from internal and outside  stakeholders. We also interviewed authors of studies and other retirement  experts about retirement readiness.
We also reviewed survey questions of retirees and workers approaching  retirement age to infer information about their experiences of saving for  and living in retirement. These surveys asked questions regarding  financial well-being, confidence in being able to afford a comfortable  retirement, and expectations of when and how people plan to retire  contrasted with the actual experiences of current retirees. We analyzed  the most recent available data from all of the surveys used as of April  2015.
The University of Michigan’s Health and Retirement Study (HRS) is a  longitudinal panel study that surveys a representative sample of  approximately 26,000 Americans over the age of 50 every 2 years, with  new cohorts being added to the sample every 6 years. The HRS also  includes off-year studies to cover specific topics, like consumption, in  depth. GAO used data from the 2012 core survey. As with all survey data,  some statistical imprecision exists in the data that are presented in this  report.
The Federal Reserve’s 2013 Survey of Household Economics and  Decisionmaking is a first-time survey conducted by the Federal Reserve  to better understand the financial state of U.S. households. The survey  was conducted by the Board’s Division of Consumer and Community  Affairs in September 2013 using a nationally representative online survey  panel. The survey was administered by GfK, an online consumer  research company. It created a nationally representative probability- based sample by selecting respondents, adults 18 years and older, based  on both random digit dialing and address-based sampling. A total of 4,134  surveys were fully completed. The data are weighted using the variables  of gender, age, race/ethnicity, education, census region, residence in a  metropolitan area, and access to the Internet. Demographic weighting  targets are based on the Current Population Survey. As with all survey  data, some statistical imprecision exists in the data that are presented in  this report.
Gallup conducts daily tracking of public opinion through the Gallup U.S.  Daily. For the Gallup U.S. Daily, Gallup samples 3,500 respondents a  week, 15,000 a month, and 175,000 a year. Surveys are conducted  among U.S. adults ages 18 and older, using both landline and cell phone  numbers. Each sample of national adults includes a minimum quota of 50  percent cell phone respondents and 50 percent landline respondents. The  data are weighted by gender, age, race, Hispanic ethnicity, education,  region, population density, and phone status. Demographic weighting  targets are based on the Current Population Survey. Gallup samples  landline and cell phone numbers using random-digit-dial methods. The  results we reported on are based on the sub-sample of baby boomers, or  1,929 adults born from 1946 through 1964. The margin of sampling error  is plus or minus 4 percentage points at the 95 percent confidence level.
The 2015 Retirement Confidence Survey, conducted by the Employee  Benefit Research Institute (EBRI) and Greenwald & Associates, is an  annual survey on the views and attitudes of working-age and retired  Americans regarding retirement, their preparations for retirement, their  confidence with regard to various aspects of retirement, and related  issues. The survey was conducted in January and February 2015 through  20-minute telephone interviews with 2,004 individuals (1,003 workers and  1,001 retirees) age 25 and older in the United States. Random-digit  dialing was used to obtain a representative sample, as well as a cell  phone supplement. All data are weighted by age, sex, and education to  reflect the actual proportions in the adult population. The weighted  samples of workers and retirees yield a statistical precision of plus or  minus 3.5 percentage points, with 95 percent certainty, of what the results  would be if all Americans age 25 and older were surveyed with complete  accuracy.
The 2013 Risks and Process of Retirement Survey, sponsored by the  Society of Actuaries and prepared by Greenwald & Associates, is a  survey intended to provide insights into how Americans decide to retire,  how they perceive post-retirement risks, and how they manage financial  resources in retirement. The survey was conducted online among  Americans age 45-80 and included both pre-retirees and retirees at all  income levels. A total of 2,000 interviews, half among pre-retirees and  half among retirees, lasting an average of 20 minutes, were conducted  using Research Now’s online consumer panel from August 19-28, 2013.  The sample data are weighted by age, sex, and census region to the  2012 population estimates released by the Census Bureau. As with all  survey data, some statistical imprecision exists in the data that are  presented in this report.
The official poverty rates and Supplemental Poverty Measures that we  report come from the Census Bureau. The official poverty rate is  sometimes used to determine eligibility for government programs and  funding distributions. The Supplemental Poverty Measure is considered  an experimental measure and serves as an additional indicator of  economic well-being and provides a deeper understanding of economic  conditions and policy effects. We reported on the poverty rates for older  Americans, to indicate financial well-being.
For all survey data used in this report, we reviewed methodological  documentation and, when appropriate, interviewed individuals  knowledgeable about the data and conducted electronic testing. Based  on this, we found the data to be reliable for the purposes used in this  report.
section_title: Appendix II: List of Selected Studies of Retirement Income Adequacy
paragraphs: Aon Hewitt, “The Real Deal: 2012 Retirement Income Adequacy at Large  Companies – Highlights,” (2012), accessed April 8, 2015,  http://www.aon.com/human-capital-consulting/thought- leadership/retirement/survey_2012_the-real-deal.jsp.
Biggs, Andrew G. and Sylvester Schieber, “Is There a Retirement Crisis?”  National Affairs, no. 20 (Summer 2014): 55-75.
Brady, Peter, Kimberly Burham, and Sarah Holden. The Success of the  U.S. Retirement System. Investment Company Institute. Washington,  D.C.: December 2012.
Favreault, Melissa M., Richard W. Johnson, Karen E. Smith, and Sheila  R. Zedlewski, “Boomers’ Retirement Income Prospects.” Urban Institute.  Brief no. 34 (February 2012).
Hurd, Michael D. and Susan Rohwedder, “Economic Preparation for  Retirement.” Investigations in the Economics of Aging, ed. David A. Wise.  Chicago: University of Chicago Press (May 2012), 77-113.
Munnell, Alicia H., Wengliang Hou, and Anthony Webb, “NRRI Update  Shows Half Still Falling Short.” Center for Retirement Research at Boston  College, Number 14-20. (December 2014).
Rhee, Nari and Ilana Boivie, “The Continuing Retirement Savings Crisis.”  National Institute on Retirement Security. Washington, D.C.: March 2015.
Scholz, John Karl, Ananth Seshadri, and Surachai Khitatrakun, “Are  Americans Saving ‘Optimally’ for Retirement?” Journal of Political  Economy. vol. 114, no. 4. (2006): 607-643.
VanDerhei, Jack, “Retirement Income Adequacy for Boomers and Gen  Xers: Evidence from the 2012 EBRI Retirement Security Projection  Model.” Employee Benefit Research Institute, Notes, vol. 33, no. 5 (May  2012).
section_title: Appendix III: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments
subsections: section_title: GAO Contact
section_title: Staff Acknowledgments
paragraphs: Michael Collins (Assistant Director), Mark Glickman, Shilpa Grover, and  Laura Hoffrey made key contributions to this report. In addition, support  was provided by James Bennett, Mitchell Karpman, Kathy Leslie, Sheila  McCoy, Susan E. Offutt (GAO Chief Economist), Mark Ramage,  Joseph  Silvestri, Frank Todisco (GAO Chief Actuary), Walter Vance, Charles  Willson, and Craig Winslow.
section_title: Related GAO Products
paragraphs: Private Pensions: Participants Need Better Information When Offered  Lump Sums That Replace Their Lifetime Benefits, GAO-15-74.  Washington, D.C.: January 27, 2015.
Retirement Security: Challenges for Those Claiming Social Security  Benefits Early and New Health Coverage Options, GAO-14-311.  Washington, D.C.: April 23, 2014.
Retirement Security: Trends in Marriage and Work Patterns May Increase  Economic Vulnerability for Some Retirees, GAO-14-33. Washington,  D.C.: January 15, 2014.  401(k) Plans: Other Countries’ Experiences Offer Lessons in Policies and  Oversight of Spend-down Options, GAO-14-9. Washington, D.C.:  November 20, 2013.
Automatic IRAs: Lower-Earning Households Could Realize Increases in  Retirement Income, GAO-13-699. Washington, D.C.: August 23, 2013.  401(k) Plans: Labor and IRS Could Improve the Rollover Process for  Participants, GAO-13-30. Washington, D.C.: March 7, 2013.
Retirement Security: Annuities with Guaranteed Lifetime Withdrawals  Have Both Benefits and Risks, but Regulation Varies across States,  GAO-13-75. Washington, D.C.: December 10, 2012.
Retirement Security: Women Still Face Challenges, GAO-12-699.  Washington, D.C.: July 19, 2012.
Unemployed Older Workers: Many Experience Challenges Regaining  Employment and Face Reduced Retirement Security, GAO-12-445.  Washington, D.C.: April 25, 2012.
Retirement Income: Ensuring Income throughout Retirement Requires  Difficult Choices, GAO-11-400. Washington, D.C.: June 7, 2011.
Private Pensions: Some Key Features Lead to an Uneven Distribution of  Benefits, GAO-11-333. Washington, D.C.: March 30, 2011.