FYI: No one wants to be a statistic, but when it comes to retirement preparedness and confidence, everyone falls somewhere in the spectrum.
You’re either part of the 58% of workers who are at least reasonably confident about having enough money for retirement, or you’re in the parts of the populace that are significantly more nervous about their future. You either have a financial plan, which is boosting your confidence, or you lack a plan, which is holding your outlook down.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.marketwatch.com/story/5-things-you-need-to-have-a-successful-retirement-2015-04-24/print

Vanguard target funds for your 401Ks whenever you can get them. adjust your bond to equities by picking the appropriate retirement year ie. 2050 or 2025 ect.
In your individual accounts IRAs or Brokerage Vanguard has better choices,
Don't use Fidelity so don't comment or care... better options

Hmm ... It's actually "etc.", an English abbreviation based on two Latin words: "Et" meaning "and" and "Cetra", a form of the pronoun meaning "the others". (Don't they teach Latin in schools any longer?)
To your point about not caring. Agree there are better options, but there are still a couple reasons to care. First, a good number of your fellow citizens lacking your knowledge are being "herded" into these products by their workplace plan administrators. I assume you care some for your fellow citizens?
Second, we can learn quite a bit about investing as well as how different fund companies think based on how they operate these funds. The "glide-path" each establishes represents an attempt to balance the risks inherent in investing against the need for younger workers to grow their assets. These "optimum" allocations by age vary significantly from company to company. It's noteworthy, for instance, that T. Rowe Price is generally one of the more aggressive in the degree of risk they consider appropriate at various ages. Also noteworthy is that Price determined a need to add a real-asset fund to their target-date mix only recently. And the type and duration of bonds selected for these funds in this low-rate environment must surely be of interest.
So, there are reasons to care.

Agree Derf, the next overdue bear market will dwindle that already miniscule percentage. Nice post clacy! If SS is your only source of income, my rule of thumb (subject to debate of course) is a debt free single person needs $2,000,000 and a debt free couple $3,000,000 to enjoy a stress free, carefree retirement.
Edit: I could be dead wrong but I get the impression that this board is not the norm and there are a lot of affluent investors here when it comes to their account balances. That's possibly because we aren't exactly a board of youngsters.

Pretty much every young person I have met that I mentioned saving for retirement to, has said they would start in a few years. Current debt load or just wanting to have fun might be two of the biggest reasons. These were twenty somethings who got into good jobs. ( 70-80k and up. They will end up losing a full decade of investing in my view. (Age 25-35 approx.)
A crash or a downturn midstream does affect you if you drop out. I started in 1986 and stopped in 2008. I had some serious swings there but I was lucky in timing. GNMA's did very well in the early 2000's. So I didn't drop out per say but made a good choice and only lost nominally compared to those who lost half
Discipline and luck.

To be fair, I would lump all tax advantage accounts together (and maybe even from spouses) to give you real numbers. I have for instance, had four 401k's but after leaving the companies I worked for, rolled them into IRA's (multiple accounts as a matter of fact). If an employee has several different accounts the odds go down substantially that they would have equity north of $1m in any one account. That seems to coincide with their figure of 34 years with average tenure for those that the average >$1m accounts.
I do agree though, the population of millionaire-retirement account investors, is probably very small overall. But I'm sure it's far greater than 0.6% of workers. I guess it depends on your definition of millionaire too (do you include a spouses accounts in a dual income household?).
As a related side note, I think it's absurd how frequently you hear finance articles, financial planners, etc reference enormous sums needed for retirement. Many times they will make the point that if you don't have $3-4m saved for retirement you will be eating dog food and working at Walmart until your death bed.
The numbers are so out of line with most American workers, that it may actually discourage savings to some degree. For a 45 year old making $50k/yr and $25k saved, it would be discouraging to hear that you needed $3m+ to retire comfortable. So discouraging that I'm sure people have said "what the heck am I saving for then?".

More fun with numbers here. Not commenting on the Australian plan, but what strikes me as an apples-to-oranges comparison.
In the lead paragraph that Ted quotes above, we have the statement that over 90% of Australians put money into the system. That sounds to me like a low number for a system that is mandatory.
The article then goes on to say that in a 2011 EBRI study (the article itself is from two years ago), 40% of working Americans participated in an employer retirement plan. That looks very low compared with Australia (which is a point of the article), until one looks at what this 40% figure represents.
According to the EBRI paper, 75.2 million workers worked for an employer that provided a retirement plan (defined benefit, i.e. traditional pension, and/or defined contribution, like a 401k plan). Of these, 61.0 or over 80% participated. Remember too, that just because an employer offers a plan doesn't mean that all employees are qualified to participate. So the actual participation percentage of those eligible to participate is higher still. Getting pretty close to Australia's figures - and that's on a volunteer basis.
If one wants to find fault in the low participation rate, blame it on the fact that (according to EBRI) only 48.9% of workers even worked for an employer offering a retirement plan (whether or not they qualified to participate). If there's something to fix, it would seem to be getting more employers to offer retirement plans, not raising employees' interest in participating.
Here's the EBRI summary and paper.

Vanguard target funds for your 401Ks whenever you can get them. adjust your bond to equities by picking the appropriate retirement year ie. 2050 or 2025 ect.
In your individual accounts IRAs or Brokerage Vanguard has better choices,
Don't use Fidelity so don't comment or care... better options

Retirement is beautiful. Truly. And bless my working wife. Woman. Who can dare to claim to understand Her? But I love her, anyway. Almost as much as baseball.

"if this is retirement, sign me up, please! Nothing like a slow moving morning...."
Yes Puddnhead, I highly reccomend retirement!

Thanks, Linkster!
Great post....one word.....(genius).....you are your own worst enemy, just as he said. You must play the game to win. The future is not ours to know. It's been hidden from all eyes.
God bless.
the Pudd
p.s. Vacation day here.....if this is retirement, sign me up, please! Nothing like a slow moving morning....

From the article:
"The U.S. is ranked ninth, with Mercer researchers faulting American 401(k) rules that allow savers to borrow from their accounts and take penalty-free distributions as soon as they reach age 59½."
There is this constant push to keep people working well into their 60's and into their 70's as well. Not all workers want to or can work that long. If the person has saved into their taxed deferred accounts throughout their work history, why not let them leave the work force early. That frees up jobs for the younger folks. I do agree with the idea regarding borrowing from retirement accounts. It should be a last resort.
As mentioned in another thread recently, travel is a great idea. Being able to do what you want and enjoy your senior years should not be lost. If you enjoy your work then that's fine. But for many, the senior years should be enjoyed with family and friends.

FYI: Here’s another Aussie term D.C. lawmakers should get to know: superannuation. That’s what Australia calls its retirement savings system, which in just two decades has become one of the most highly regarded in the world. Since its introduction in 1992, the Superannuation Guarantee program has grown to $1.52 trillion, more than the country’s gross domestic product, with more than 90 percent of workers putting money into the system.
Regards,
Ted
http://www.bloomberg.com/bw/articles/2013-05-30/in-australia-retirement-saving-done-right

I couldn't help but notice the title of the column: Fidelity vs. Vanguard, not actively managed vs. passively managed. So why did Merriman do the latter comparison? Fidelity has a series of target date funds that invest in index funds, and have exactly the same underlying ER as Vanguard; 0.16%.
(To John's point - sometimes Fidelity does not charge more for the same product; they generally match Vanguard in the index arena.)
There are still a couple of differences though, that Hank alluded to: the glide path of Fidelity funds (whether these index ones, or the ones Merriman chose to use as straw men) continue changing until 15 years past their target date (i.e. you still need growth past age 65). Vanguard's settle into a sleepy 30/70 (stock/bond) split just five years after retirement.
Then there is the breadth of assets employed. Even these "boring" Fidelity index target funds use TIPs and commodities. (The actively managed Fidelity target funds go further) And still they do this with the same ER. (To be fair, Vanguard adds international bonds, albeit hedged.)

Hi OJ. Hats off to you and Catch.
We put on two additions during the first decade after retirement along with substantial remodeling. Chose mostly to finance at around 3% and let our savings run.
Both projects lasted about 6 months. For the first, I volunteered to be the "grunt" for the contractor. Spent a miserable summer ripping out walls and ceilings, painting, picking up the old shingles they pitched on the ground and running pickup loads of rubbish to the dump. (Managed to step on more than a few sharp nails in the process.)
For the second, I was wiser, volunteering to be "electrician" and obtaining the necessary local permit. Got tons of expert advice online. Spent a summer climbing ladders, boring holes through studs, stringing wire, and crawling around under the house in cold dark places. However, it was preferable to the earlier "grunt" work.
We could use and afford another addition. But, not willing to put up with the pain again. That's why I had a favorable reaction to JohnC's recent suggestion in another thread that retirement money go to traveling.
Good luck on your project.

Hi, Hank.
We have no demographic data on you folks. On adamant principle, we've disabled the tracking functions of Google Analytics. We know aggregate onsite behavior (for example, how long the average visit is and how many folks are on-site) and some tech stuff (how many folks access us via smartphone, which operating systems and browsers folks use, and what city the router's in). And what we do have can't distinguish folks participating on the discussion board from casual readers or browsers.
Hmmm... readership has drifted down a tad (23,700 in the past month), we're seeing vigorous traffic from Akershus, Norway (Hilsener! to our 94 Akershusian friends), time-on-site remains high at 5:21, 61.6% of visitors are using Windows, 0.33% of you visit using the Silk browser while only 0.07% use SeaMonkey, the most frequent outbound click was on Charles's table on funds ranked by Bear Market Deviation ... but ages? Nada.
One of my retired colleagues spent an awful lot of time on campus during retirement. When I asked him why, he said it was simple: "I want to be somewhere that people talk about something other than their health."
David

Junkster said "... All the more reasons why some of us old timers need to start spending and enjoying what we have accumulated over the years. Life is short!".
AMEN.
-
Assuming the age of a great many here to be 65 or over, I'm a little puzzled there isn't greater discussion about withdrawing money and putting proceeds to good use. How often are we as investors faced with a crucial investment decision? Rarely I'd say. By contrast, we make decisions about spending nearly every day of the week. Yet, nary a mention.
I have some possible explanations. First, the average age of participants may be much lower than envisioned (I'd love to see whatever demographic data David has). If the average age is closer to 35 or 45, than it makes sense so much of the discussion revolves around buying/selling mutual funds, stocks, bonds or other investments. Another possibility is that many older folks who come here may fear they haven't saved enough to meet anticipated retirement needs - and are struggling to play catch-up at a late stage. The third (most likely) explanation is that it just isn't considered appropriate to mention spending on a forum devoted to investing.
I'd never argue that one should stop investing - not at any age. Even late in retirement folks should be seeking to outperform the measly returns cash and many bonds now offer. And since retirement may well last 30 years or longer, younger retirees still need to be acute to growing the nest-egg. Also, some older investors are focused primarily on growing their assets for the benefit of posterity.
Thanks Junkster and heezsafe for pointing this out in your recent posts. Just some rambling over coffee this morning.

Article not available to me, but based upon a lot of intense recent research and direct observation I can tell you that the "big if" is whether or not you will require an extended stay in a nursing home. (Think "dementia", in particular.) Last year I spent lots of time checking out facilities and doing the math with a close relative whose spouse had reached the point where she could not reasonably continue to keep him at home. 1.) These places are very, very expensive -- at least the ones you would want to have a relative staying in. 2.) New ones are springing up everywhere, some stand-alone, others associated with upscale "retirement communities", -- virtually all are for-profit enterprises. The investors building these facilities are not stupid, they see the numbers: more people living longer = more people with dementia etc. And with excellent care, you can live a long time with dementia. ( Not to mention that the rates of long-term care insurance are currently poised to skyrocket off the map.)
Having been through all the financial scenarios, I can only conclude that if you are in modestly comfortable (but hardly "rich") circumstances, you can live a good life in retirement and leave something to your heirs -- as long as you (and your immediate dependent(s)) avoid long-term disability. And that is the big crap-shoot.

Ditto JohnC. Exactly!
(edit) Let's add first-class seating in flight. Than a decent rental car at destination with leather, rag-top and some guts under the hood. Wonderful way to burn through retirement savings. :)

You SHOULD always spend less Money in retirement than when you were Working, having a mountain of bills/payments, were raising a family and having the
"Good Times'...
What are you going to spend money on Now? Any Ideas

@ MFO Members: Yahoo.Com Free !!
Regards,
Ted
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/why-you-will-need-less-money-than-you-think-for-retirement-140914778.html