Six Simple Ways to Retire Rich

Thanks to automatic 401(k) plans and one-stop investing options, saving for retirement is a cinch.

By Mary Beth Franklin, Senior Editor

From Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine, February 2008
Text Size T T

Advertisement

Retirement savings plans are undergoing an extreme makeover. After decades of trying to teach Americans how to save and invest for their own retirement -- with mixed success -- employers have come up with a simple solution: They'll do it for you.

SECURE YOUR RETIREMENT
See How to Save a Million at Any Age
Turn Savings Into Retirement Income
TOOL: How Much Will My 401(k) Grow?
FREE RETIREMENT PLANNING ADVICE


Thanks to automatic enrollment in 401(k)s and other retirement plans, plus streamlined investment options, saving is so effortless that you can't help but succeed. And that's true whether you're starting your career, switching jobs or planning your exit.

To help their employees compensate for disappearing pensions and declining Social Security benefits, more than one-third of large companies have already embraced the new reality of retirement saving: the automatic 401(k). That's up from just 19% in 2005.

More than half of all employers expect to offer automatic enrollment this year. The trend also applies to 403(b) retirement plans for teachers and employees of nonprofit organizations, as well as to the 457 plans that many state and local governments use. "Now you'll succeed at saving for retirement even if you don't do anything," says Jeff Maggioncalda, president of Financial Engines, a pioneer in providing investment advice to workers.

The most effective new plans pair automatic enrollment with an option to increase the amount you contribute to your account each year. When Nationwide Insurance added an automatic-escalation feature to its 401(k) plan last spring, employees Sean and Lisa Kennedy signed up, promising to boost their contributions by one percentage point each year until they reach the maximum contribution level.

"We can tie it to our annual salary increases," says Sean, 38. "We'll never see the extra money in our take-home pay, so we won't miss it."

Aside from adding to their already substantial nest egg, the Kennedys will also be able to cut their taxes -- a more immediate concern, says Lisa, 31. She and Sean, who live in Columbus, Ohio, contributed more than $25,000 to their retirement accounts in 2007, saving them more than $7,500 in taxes, assuming a combined state and federal rate of 30%.

The third piece of the automatic 401(k) model is built-in professional investment advice, whether in the form of target-date retirement funds, computer-generated model portfolios or managed accounts. Together, the changes amount to a total overhaul of 401(k) plans. "It reverses our assumptions about what individuals are willing and able to do," says Maggioncalda. "It makes inertia work in their favor."

1. Sign Up

Employees are nearly unanimous in their support for being automatically enrolled in their company's 401(k) plan, according to a recent study conducted for the Retirement Made Simpler coalition, made up of AARP, the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority (Finra) and the Retirement Security Project. Nearly 95% of surveyed adults agreed that auto 401(k) plans make saving for retirement easier, and 85% said they started saving earlier as a result. Only 7% of those who had been automatically enrolled in a plan opted out. (If you are automatically enrolled in your company plan, you can get your money back without tax penalty if you back out within the first 90 days.)

Although auto 401(k) plans are a major step forward, they have a downside. Pamela Hess, director of research for consulting firm Hewitt Associates, worries that some employees may be lulled into complacency, accepting default contribution levels as implicit savings guidelines when they can and should be saving more. Most employers set the initial deferral rate at 3% of salary, and many plans with automatic-escalation features top out at 6% of pay. That's well below the 15% of gross income (including employer matching contributions) generally recommended as a target for retirement savings.

The Kennedys, who are approaching that recommended 15% target, are well on their way to a secure retirement, even if their plans to start a family may force them to scale back future contributions. An early start on saving, coupled with the power of compounding, will work its magic over time. But if you're a late bloomer, don't despair. By starting now and increasing your contributions a little each year, you could still reach your goal.

Get Kiplinger's Personal Finance magazine for $12. Save 75%!

Discuss

Reader Comments (35)

Posted by: Joe at 01/11/2008 10:16:00 AM

Why is there a growing trend of young professionals that make a decent salaries to be "living at home". I really hope I am making an incorrect assumption of Mr Webre's situation, but by living at home I assume he means living with his parents, which if it is anything similar to other people I know that do this it means "rent/bill/responsibility free". Maybe contributing less to a 401k and contributing more to a self-sustaining, more responsible living situation may be in order.

Posted by: Lisa at 01/11/2008 12:42:54 PM

As one of the "young professionals" that went back home, it had nothing to do with savings or mooching off parents. It has everything to do with the extreme cost of living. It's harder than ever to live single, save for a home and say for day to day expenses, much less save for retirement. Don't lump all of the younger generation together who go back home. It's just a place to land for a little while until we can find a way to live on our own. Remember the average home prices are through the roof, and only dual income households or singles who make extremely high salaries can afford them these days. As for this article, it's got great information about savings, but I realize that even though my employer offers a 403(b), one must be salary to gain the advantages of matching; as an hourly employee I'm better off contributing to my personal Roth IRA and mutual funds than wasting time investing through my employer. Then, when I leave, I don't have to play the roll-over game.

Posted by: Ken at 01/11/2008 12:49:13 PM

I would be hesitant to jump all over a 20-something who chooses to live with his parents, if he has a decent job. Rather, I consider him blessed to have a decent job in his home town. This is different than someone who has graduated, has no means, and no inclination to move out. When the appropriate time comes, he can move out. Until then why waste money on an apartment or house he doesn't need?

Posted by: Chuck at 01/11/2008 10:57:11 PM

...It's rare to find a young person (21 years old) that recognizes how important early steps can shape their financial future. Even more importantly and rarer still is a young person that grabs the Bull by the Horns and takes action to facilitate this . . . My hat is off to the young Mr. Webre . . . I'd like to see more like him . . .

Posted by: A Jones at 01/12/2008 10:05:05 AM

At age 64 I did the math, sold my car (Austin has an excellent bus system.), and retired; rich! Since retirement I have averaged adding $500 per month to my savings. It helps to quit working for the industrial complex as well as the old daily grind.

Posted by: Ed at 01/22/2008 12:36:44 PM

Please pay particular attention to #6 Sell Company Stock. Take it from someone who paid over $100,000 for that lesson.

Posted by: enoriverbend at 01/22/2008 01:08:27 PM

I understand and sympathize with Lisa's comment earlier about young people living at home. I did wonder about her comment about her employer's 403b: Although the non-matching part makes the 403b less attractive, it doesn't make it completely unattractive. For most folks in her situation I'd say fund the Roth IRA first, then max out the 403b, before investing in non-tax-deferred funds last. The 403b is a good deal -- better in some ways than a 401k, at least at some organizations. (I can compare easily since my employer has a 401k and my wife's a 403b.)

Posted by: Michael at 01/22/2008 04:32:02 PM

Retiring a millionaire sounds wonderful. However, if a 25 year old today wants to retire at 65 with the purchasing power of a millionaire, s/he will actually need to save $3 million by 2048. Having a retirement fund of only $1 million in 2048 will mean you'll be just getting by with the purchasing power of about $331,000 in today's money. So, the article is only of marginal value. People will need to shoot higher if they want a comfortable retirement.

Posted by: Jim at 01/25/2008 01:20:42 PM

Call me old fashioned but I'd prefer my pay go where I direct it. Negative consent doesn't usually sit well with the courts....

Posted by: Shawna at 01/26/2008 09:31:37 AM

Lisa The impression I get from your post is: Considering the housing market is at an all time low and it is by far a buyers market with foreclosure homes to be bought around just about every corner I dont know how you think buying will become any cheaper than it is right now. This current trend is bound to change and home prices will start to go back up...you should consider an apartment or renting a house, not everyone walks into the working world with the ability to buy a home, the vast majority of homeowners have rented at some point prior to owning and if renting on your own is too far of a financial stretch there is the possibility of roommates...

Posted by: gail hiebert at 01/29/2008 10:51:41 AM

I wonder why I keep reading 'how to be/get rich to retire at 65" when all I hear and read about is examples of the younger people who have well situated positions, (can now) use 401K's which were not available when I was working, when inflation is eating up all possible savings one might have on meager earnings, and there is no solid or even reasonale suggestions on how to retire rich when you're 65 unless I'm earning more that 5K per week. Where is a common sense approach that would address the reality of the older generation that did not have all the the savings possibilities that exist today?

Posted by: Nina at 01/29/2008 11:05:00 AM

1 million dollers will (be) almost nothing in 20-30-40 years. Even now in Europe 1 million dollars is only 650,000 Euro - the value of one average apartment.

Posted by: RQ at 01/29/2008 11:08:47 AM

Sounds fine and well except for one thing. Where do I get the money to begin with; I barely make ends meet and, no, I don't go on shopping sprees....I can't afford to put any more into my retirement right now.

Posted by: LISA at 01/29/2008 11:13:49 AM

This all sounds great if you have a job that offers 401k but what about people like myself who work in the bar and restaurant industry and don't have a retirement option offered by their employers?? How much of my limited earnings do I contribute and where????

Posted by: Pieter at 01/29/2008 11:15:50 AM

Yes it would be nice to retire with one million. but the bumps on the roads need fixing...pay yourself first a little at (a) time $ 50 maybe $100 a month...you realy wont miss it...considder it free $$$...in the long run you still be ahead of the people that read this but wont act on it...

Posted by: JD at 01/29/2008 11:22:02 AM

I think young people should focus on living comfortably when they retire - not worrying about becoming millionare when they are 65. You do not need to be a millionare to live comfortably, you just need to be smart. Use your money wisely to take care of yourself and family when you are young and healthy. I know too many young people worrying about becoming millionares when they reach 65, and do not think much about living life now to the fullest and putting family first. Your life can change in split second, and you may never see that million dollars at age 65. Yes, save for retirement, but do not go over board. Live rich, do not die rich.

Posted by: C.Diblasi at 01/29/2008 11:29:32 AM

...MOST people in this country don't earn the kind of salary that would allow them to save those amounts. I live in NC. and a 'GOOD' paycheck here is $25.00 a week. Most employers,( including the BIG companies & chains), have started to put 80% of thier staff on 39hr. work-weeks, to avoid (paying) benefits....

Posted by: TJ at 01/29/2008 11:35:56 AM

...Uncle Sam is going to get you on the back end once you begin to withdraw that money. The government wants to give you a tax-deferred growth by allowing pre-tax dollars to be invested. The government will pass on taxing you on the $15,500/year limit that you can contribute in order to capitalize on taxing you on the $1,000,000 to $2,000,000 that you will have accumulated by the time you reach retirement. At 65+ years of age, will you honestly be able to take giving the government a minimum of 30% of your investment due to taxes? (But) I am not saying 401k's, 403b's, etcetera are bad products, especially if you have no other options.

Posted by: Goofyfan at 01/29/2008 11:38:50 AM

I would love to retire a millionaire, but while approaching age 40, being a homemaker, a mother, and living on my husband's income and with us being homeowners, it truly seems impossible to do. I have been searching for a job to help out, but I have not found one yet. We cannot afford to send me to school...I'm afraid to get financial aide, for fear that I may not be able to pay it back...Any suggestions to help people like me?

Posted by: Mike at 01/29/2008 11:39:55 AM

I couldn't help but find myself wondering if this "living at home" thing isn't a by-product of the society that the Boomers have developed. There was a time when when you turned 18, you were an adult and you acted like one. This meant starting your life and "moving out," not relying on the blanket of Mom and Dad all the time... I think in a way that this all lends again to the society we have: one with less and less importance on personal responsibility. I'm 28, and besides the $$$ my parents gave me towards tuition (which wasn't in full, I still have loans) I was essentially on my own at 18. I think it taught me a tremendous amount about being my own man and being my own person....I now have a wonderful wife, beautiful home, sound job, and a very above average life for someone my age. Those life lessons I learned early helped shape me...

Posted by: Dirk Dasterdly at 01/29/2008 01:30:13 PM

I did the calculations before reading Michael's post, but came to the same conclusion (but for a 35 y.o.) (~$400,000 in purchasing power/PV). To continue the analysis, consider that when you retire, a good goal would be if you could live off the interest. Another would be to deplete the account over time, but then what happens if you live to 100?? In any event, to live off the interest, you'd move your assets to an interest bearing investment. If that paid 5%, then a $400,000 (PV) nest egg would only pay $20,000/year (pre-tax). Would that support your lifestyle? Your house is probably paid off but your meds got more expensive (unless you voted for HillaryCare and allow the rest of America to support your medical expenses). It seems like most of the retirement guides talk about "having a million dollars". To maintain their credibility, they really should put $1mm in perspective.

Posted by: booshaska at 01/29/2008 02:47:26 PM

How can I possibly save anything when I only make $15,000 a year net pay?

Posted by: Jack Holland at 01/29/2008 02:54:23 PM

Most Folks never achieve an 8% Savings Return...unrealistic!

Posted by: Connor at 01/29/2008 03:33:43 PM

After I graduated from college in December 2005, I lived at home for six months until the start of a prestigious summer internship that led to the job I have today. I worked two jobs in the meantime, paying my own expenses and saving the rest for the start of my current six month emergency fund. I don't think there is a problem with living at home temporarily, as long as you make good use of the time and have a plan in place for moving on afterwards.

Posted by: james at 02/04/2008 10:38:28 PM

Re:How can I possibly save anything when I only make $15,000 a year net pay? Don't settle for $15,000/year! Educate yourself in a demand field or start your own business. Opportunities abound ...

Posted by: Ed at 02/05/2008 01:43:27 PM

...Companies are ditching their pension programs to save money and are happy to have you foot most of the bill for your own retirement.

Posted by: Truth at 02/13/2008 09:57:40 PM

...yes an 8% average return is VERY realistic, considering that the Dow Jones long-term average is somewhere between 9-11% last I checked. Secondly, whoever said home prices have hit bottom and will go back up, do some research......they've got a ways to go before being reasonably valued, considering the extremely abnormal increases they experienced from 1999-2006.

Posted by: Divorced Dad -4 kids at 02/14/2008 08:47:48 PM

I began my savings at the age of 29 in 1995 six months after graduating college making $33,000 a year + a yearly take home bonus of $2500. By the end of 1997 I had accumulated $15,900 in my 401k plan. At some point before or after...I had maxed out my plan to 16%. My gross for 1997 was $42,500 but my actual net was $27,300 which comes out to an average paycheck of $1,140. By Dec. 2000 my plan was worth $46,600. I was divorced in June 2001 and the courts awarded her 60% of it. After 6 years I've nursed my plan back up to $52,700. 6 months ago I've gotten to the point where I could bump up my contributions to 10% and still make ends meet so I did. I'm 42...my 52k will double every 7 years assuming a 10% return. That ensures me $400,000 after 21 more years whether I continue to save or not. I expect to fall between $600,000 to $800,000 at a moderate continued savings. (10%) I guess the hardest part is knowing the that 60% hit I took in my divorce basically cost me 1 seven year turn-over period ultimately costing me another $400,000. Deep...yes. Painful...true. For the money? Priceless.

Posted by: Matt at 02/21/2008 03:18:05 PM

I am trying to figure out if I will benefit from a Roth 403B/403B combo. Or a 403B/Roth IRA combo. I know that lowering your tax base is important, but so is putting money in a fund that grows tax free with no tax upon disbursement after 59 1/2.

Posted by: Matt at 02/25/2008 11:53:42 AM

Credit cards kill, but not having a balance has done wonders for my savings plan. Two years ago, I had nearly 40k in credit card debt. I was getting married, paying for a ring and honeymoon, and basically lost. Borrowing from a family member, I managed to pay off one credit card. They in turn offered me a 0% card for 18 months. I rolled over remaining balances on two other cards and chopped away at them as best I could. In a year, I had paid them down to 18k. In two years, I had paid them off, paid for a ring and honeymoon, and had 25k to put down on a house. Now, instead of spending 900 a month on credit cards just to pay the interest, I put that money towards a investment account which pays me interest. Compound interest can be a beautiful thing.

Posted by: Nita at 03/05/2008 07:18:17 PM

I am just lost. I have no savings, no job and recently divorce and new to my recent area. Is there any hope for me? I have 2 children, one in HS the other in ele. Is there any hope for me to start over? I have at least 30,000 in debt and I dont even have a credit card. Just so happens just about everything was in my name. HELP!!!

Posted by: VICKY at 05/06/2008 02:37:57 AM

i am almost 72 years old, am still working, for how much longer I am not sure. How can I become better financially, as my company does not help. Are there other ways I can contribute? Thanks VICKY

Posted by: bill_htt at 07/09/2008 04:03:15 AM

LISA- work in s bar? Roth IRA man, the government is really helping you out here. Standard rule is to contribute 10%, starting at age 25! If you haven't done that, you will have to catch up. I waited until age 31, now I have to hit $75K by age 35. Ugh. You are not allowed to contribute over 5K/yr to a Roth, so I had to have a 403b and a standard taxed investment account. Can't afford it? Get a better job. Hurts to hear it, but waiting on people is not meant to be a sustainable career.

Posted by: Jim at 07/11/2008 04:11:14 PM

...Learn to take responsibility for your life and stop relying on mommy and daddy to bail you out...

Posted by: RB @ RB30RB40 at 08/03/2009 07:26:22 PM

I don't count on my 401K for anything. It ballooned to 230K after 9 years of savings, and fell to 140K. Now it's back to 183K, and i'm now back in cash after the rally. If there's money in my 401K after i retire, great. If not, I never counted on it to begin with. Rgds, RB Rich By 30 Retire By 40 Blog

Today's Video More Videos >>

Extra Cash for the Holidays

E-mail Alerts: Select the Kiplinger columns and topics to be delivered to your inbox:

Advertisement