Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On the face of it, it is logical what you say about the much bandied-about $60k figure not taking into acccount the different age groups. You say your Fidelity newsletter reports its aged 55+ clients have balances on average of mid $200k (still not enough imo), but then there are reports like this, claiming Americans 55-65 have savings and assets of $45k, not including their homes. If true, that is very alarming. So it's difficult to know whom to believe.
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107
60k is a totaly meaningless number for many reasons.
It lumps those who just opened accounts with those who have been maxing out for decades.
It does not account for age. It lumps those that barely contribute or don't with those who do.
Many who switched jobs and lost jobs took their money out and rolled it over to their iras.
Now they started new jobs and started new 401k's from scratch.
I pulled 6 figures out when i left. Started a new one and now it has 5 figures not 6.
If you do things correct only the income part of your retirement money should be in 401 k. The rest should be in your roth or taxable account taking advantage of low capital gains rates.
Want a more focused idea of what folks have who are actually close to retiring?
Fidelity says their average account for those over 55 who contribute from 1/2 max to max over the lost decade have mid 200k today.
it is not hard to believe at all. you are looking at two different groups. the fidelity group had accounts, were at their peak earning years and were contributing from 1/2 to the max for at least a decade.the other group has done nothing, little or less than max.
the average will be somewhere based on a starting point of doing nothing or zero.
that greatly dilutes the numbers .
like if i had a hundred bucks and you had zero it could be reported the average is 50. well no one has fifty though. it is either zero or 100.
that survey was done by fidelity not the newsletter.
it is not hard to believe at all. you are looking at two different groups. the fidelity group had accounts, were at their peak earning years and were contributing from 1/2 to the max for at least a decade.the other group has done nothing, little or less than max.
the average will be somewhere based on a starting point of doing nothing or zero.
that greatly dilutes the numbers .
like if i had a hundred bucks and you had zero it could be reported the average is 50. well no one has fifty though. it is either zero or 100.
that survey was done by fidelity not the newsletter.
If that's the case, then the Fidelity data says little about the state of retirement financial health for most Americans. Fidelity self-selected a group that was preparing. Good for those people. The census group was not one that had done nothing necessarily, but just randomly selected people from that age group. Even so, a figure of $45k seems awfully low. I looked at the data given here, and for that age group it shows 401k savings of $45k and IRAs of $43.6k, so somewhat better, but still under $100k. Looks like a lot of people may be in for some tough times.
all you can conclude from the fidelity data is those that do save have managed to save nice amounts and those that don't have little.
i think the point is it is silly trying to draw conclusions about the state of anything from the numbers thrown out .
the doom and gloomers love it when the have nots dilute those who have so it makes those in that camp not look so bad.
after all if you have 100k saved and the other camp has 300k saved if you take the 200k in the middle as the average you can go gee i almost have what everyone else has.
the reality is no you don't, you have 1/3 as much but the average makes you look better.
someone can have zero saved and a 50k a year pension and see the same cash flow as someone with a million bucks saved.
it is all alot of bull, just worry about your own situation and how you are doing as far as meeting your needs.
A well designed plan should have only income generating stuff in the retirement plan so equities should be in a taxable account.
There are so many ways folks can and will generate income that looking at only retirement savings is looking with one eye.
Many have real estate, annuities and pension income as well.
How many of that 75% are young workers just starting out?
Last edited by mathjak107; 04-14-2013 at 12:30 PM..
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
