By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel consensus is that the article's suggestion of using crypto assets like Bitcoin to close the retirement savings gap for those in their 50s is reckless and unreliable. The real issues are stagnant real wage growth, inadequate savings rates due to cost of living, and the need for stable principal preservation in retirement.
Risk: Sequence-of-returns risk, particularly with volatile assets like Bitcoin near retirement, can permanently impair a thin nest egg.
Opportunity: None identified.
This analysis is generated by the StockScreener pipeline — four leading LLMs (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) receive identical prompts with built-in anti-hallucination guards. Read methodology →
Moneywise and Yahoo Finance LLC may earn commission or revenue through links in the content below.
In 2026, the average American believes the “magic number” for a comfortable retirement is $1.46 million, according to Northwestern Mutual (1). Unfortunately, most workers are nowhere close to that lofty target.
In fact, as of 2022, only 4.6% of Americans had retirement assets greater than $1 million, according to a study by the Congressional Research Service (2). Put another way, less than 1 in 20 people in America are in the seven-figure retirement club.
Despite all the headlines and braggarts you see on social media, this is still a rare and exclusive club.
So, if you’re falling short of this target but still determined to break into this golden tier, here are three simple steps you can take to improve your odds of success.
You can’t get to any destination if you don’t know where you are starting from. That’s why the first step to a million-dollar retirement is to find data on retirement savings and compare your progress to your peers.
According to Empower, the typical American has roughly $532,291 in retirement accounts as of early 2026 (3), meaning that the average person is already halfway to a million. However, in order to get a true sense of your financial progress, it’s a good idea to dig deeper into the numbers to find the median — not the average, or mean — retirement savings for someone in your age group.
If you were to look at a set of numbers — such as the retirement savings of the American population — and then sort them into smallest to biggest, the median would be the number in the very middle of that dataset, separating one half from the other. Unlike the mean (or average), the median is less skewed by outliers — billionaires, for instance — so that it arguably gives a clearer picture of a “typical” value in certain sets of numbers.
Looking at retirement savings, the median balance for someone in their 20s is just $42,502, according to the same research from Empower. Older Americans who have potentially had longer careers and more time to save generally have higher balances. So, the median balance for someone in their 50s and 60s is $438,886 and $536,748, respectively.
With data like this in mind, you can accurately track your progress and compare it to your peers as you craft a long-term plan for retirement.
Read More: Here’s the average income of Americans by age in 2026. Are you falling behind?
If your retirement target is significantly above average (or the median), your savings rate probably needs to be far above average as well.
And it doesn’t take much to beat the average saver. As of March 2026, the typical personal savings rate is just 3.6%, according to Federal Reserve data (4). That means saving just 5% of your income could put you above average. Hit 10% or more and you’re in an elite club of super savers.
But that also means changing your spending habits. By simply resisting indulgences, you could put that extra cash into your savings, setting you on a clearer path to financial freedom. But it’s easier said than done. According to a survey conducted by Clever Real Estate, 74% of those surveyed reported having a spending problem, with 55% admitting that they often spend recklessly.
If you find it difficult to stop overindulging, you can start by building savings habits into everyday spending. With Acorns, you can automatically invest spare change from your everyday purchases into a diversified portfolio of ETFs managed by experts at leading investment firms like Vanguard and BlackRock.
For instance, if you buy a donut for $3.25, Acorns will round up the purchase to $4 and invest the change in a smart investment portfolio. So a $3.25 purchase automatically becomes a 75-cent investment in your future.
Sign up today and get a $20 bonus investment.
Savings, contributions and the power of compound interest can all help you build wealth. But only if you have enough time. These factors work best over the course of decades.
Unfortunately, many Americans are approaching retirement with a less-than-ideal nest egg. As of 2024, roughly 20% of adults over the age of 50 years had no retirement savings, and 61% were worried their savings were insufficient for retirement, according to the AARP (5).
For those in their 50s and 60s, there’s little time to accumulate wealth. But that doesn’t mean it’s impossible.
One way to mitigate this issue is to delay retirement. Not only does that give you more room to earn income and save money, but it also potentially boosts the size of your Social Security benefit check (6).
Another way to reach $1 million faster is to look for aggressive investment opportunities. For instance, the iShares Bitcoin Trust ETF, which tracks the performance of the world’s most popular cryptocurrency, has delivered a compounded annual return of over 20% since its inception (7).
To be clear, cryptoassets are notoriously volatile and risky — and an ETF like the iShares Bitcoin Trust has only been around since 2024. However, a few good bets in this emerging asset class could help you rapidly close the gap between your nest egg and your $1 million target.
If you’re looking for a straightforward way to invest in this space, you can get direct exposure on platforms like Kraken, which lets you buy and trade cryptocurrencies whether you’re on desktop or using the mobile app.
Using this platform, you can invest in 600+ cryptocurrencies*, including Bitcoin, Ethereum, Solana, XRP and more, or set up recurring buys to invest automatically. There’s also the option to add price conditions, so your trades only execute when the market hits your target.
Plus, if you’re still unsure about cryptocurrencies, Kraken offers guides on popular coins, helping you understand what you’re buying and how to navigate the process from start to finish. If you have questions, 24/7 support is available via live chat, phone or email.
Opening an account is quick and easy. All you have to do is sign up and get verified, then create a short investor profile to get started.
Not investment advice. Crypto trading involves risk of loss. View legal disclosures at kraken.com/legal/disclosures (1) . The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Kraken or its management.
Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise’s best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our editorial ethics and guidelines .
Northwestern Mutual (1) (2); Congress.gov (2) (3); Empower (3) (4); Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (4) (5); AARP (5) (6); Social Security Administration (6) (7); iShares (7) (8)
We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see our ethics and guidelines.
Kraken (1); Northwestern Mutual (2); Congress.gov (3); Empower (4); FRED, Federal Reserve Economic Data (5); AARP (6); Social Security Administration (7); iShares (8)
This article provides information only and should not be construed as advice. It is provided without warranty of any kind.
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"The article misdiagnoses a structural income/savings problem as a behavioral one, then prescribes speculative assets to a population that statistically lacks the time horizon and risk tolerance to recover from drawdowns."
This article conflates a savings problem with an investment problem, then pivots to crypto as the solution—a classic bait-and-switch. The real issue: 4.6% of Americans hit $1M because most can't save 10%+ of income for 30+ years. The median 50-year-old has $439K, meaning they'd need ~5.5% annual returns just to reach $1M by 65. The article then suggests Bitcoin ETFs (20%+ CAGR since 2024) as the fix. That's survivorship bias dressed as strategy. A 50-year-old who needs $1M in 15 years and bets on crypto volatility isn't 'beating the odds'—they're gambling with retirement. The median savings rate is 3.6% because wages haven't kept pace with cost of living, not because Americans lack discipline.
If someone is already behind and has 10-15 years left, conservative 4-5% returns guarantee they won't make it; taking measured risk in growth assets (including some crypto exposure) is mathematically necessary, not reckless.
"Pushing Bitcoin ETFs to Americans with median balances under $500k near retirement amplifies ruin risk more than it improves outcomes."
The article correctly flags dismal median retirement balances (e.g., $438k for 50s) and the 3.6% savings rate but pivots to crypto as a catch-up tool for those over 50. This ignores sequence-of-returns risk: a 20%+ Bitcoin drawdown near retirement can permanently impair a thin nest egg. The 4.6% statistic also mixes working-age and retired cohorts, overstating the gap. Platforms like Kraken and Acorns are promoted without disclosing how high fees and volatility compound the odds of shortfall rather than close it.
A minority of disciplined investors who allocated 5-10% to Bitcoin post-2015 have already closed large gaps, showing that selective high-volatility exposure can mathematically accelerate compounding when time remains.
"The reliance on volatile speculative assets to bridge a massive retirement savings gap for older cohorts represents a dangerous shift from wealth preservation to gambling, likely resulting in systemic underfunding for the next generation of retirees."
The article frames the $1 million retirement target as a behavioral failure, but it ignores the structural erosion of purchasing power. Relying on a 3.6% savings rate in an inflationary environment is mathematically insufficient, regardless of 'spare change' apps. The suggestion to use volatile assets like Bitcoin (IBIT) to 'close the gap' for those in their 50s is reckless financial advice that confuses speculation with retirement planning. While the focus on median data is correct, the article fails to address the widening wealth gap and the reality that for the bottom 50%, the issue isn't 'overindulgence' but stagnant real wage growth relative to the cost of essential services like healthcare and housing.
The article's focus on individual agency is necessary because, regardless of macroeconomic headwinds, personal savings rate remains the only variable within a worker's direct control.
"The 'million-dollar retirement' benchmark is a flawed framing; real adequacy hinges on spending, inflation, longevity, and sequence-of-returns risk, not asset level alone, and crypto-forward bets risk derailing long-run retirement outcomes."
Strongest risk to the obvious read: retirement math is not a fixed hurdle; the '4.6% have >$1M' stat glosses over how spending needs, inflation, Social Security, and market path dependencies shape outcomes. The piece cherry-picks data (average vs median) and leans on a crypto playbook with a claimed 20% CAGR since inception, which ignores crypto’s drawdowns and regime risk. Advising late savers to tilt toward aggressive bets ignores sequence-of-returns risk and the reality that many households are starting far behind. The promotional tie-ins (Acorns, Kraken) undermine the credibility of prudent retirement planning and may bias readers toward risky, unverified paths.
Counterpoint: even modest improvements in savings rate, wage growth, and employer matches could materially lift many households toward a million-dollar nest egg without needing crypto bets; the target itself may reflect high consumption assumptions rather than universal adequacy.
"The article's framing of $1M as a universal retirement threshold obscures that adequacy depends on spending needs and Social Security, not a fixed asset number."
ChatGPT flags sequence-of-returns risk correctly, but everyone here assumes the $1M target is fixed. It isn't. A 55-year-old with $300K who needs $40K/year can hit that with 5% real returns—no crypto required. The article's sin isn't recommending Bitcoin; it's conflating 'reaching $1M' with 'retiring securely.' Those are different problems. Social Security + modest withdrawals close gaps that crypto speculation can't reliably fill. The real question: how many late savers are actually targeting $1M vs. targeting 'enough to not work'?
"Flexible targets do not eliminate sequence-of-returns risk from concentrated crypto bets for those over 50."
Claude reframes the problem around flexible income needs rather than a rigid $1M target, but this still leaves unaddressed how even modest $40K annual draws require stable principal preservation after age 55. A single 30% Bitcoin correction on a $300K base erodes the ability to sustain 4% withdrawals without raising savings rates or delaying retirement, especially when Social Security replaces only part of the gap. The article's platform tie-ins push the opposite direction.
"The retirement shortfall is a systemic income and cost-of-living failure that cannot be solved by individual asset allocation strategies."
Claude and Grok are debating the math of survival, but both ignore the 'retirement crisis' as a policy failure. By framing this as a personal savings or crypto-allocation problem, we ignore that for the bottom 50%, the math is broken regardless of asset class. If you cannot save more than 3.6% because of rent and healthcare, no amount of Bitcoin or index fund allocation fixes the insolvency. We are debating the deck chairs on the Titanic.
"Crypto is not a reliable bridge to secure late-career retirement; its tail risk and costs can erase gains when withdrawals start."
Claude's flexible-target retort misses the core point: near-retirement math is about preserving principal, not chasing a $1M milestone. The real risk crypto buys you is tail risk amplification—a 20%+ drawdown late in the horizon can wipe out years of gains just as withdrawals begin, and fees/trackers add drag. A path-dependent model shows crypto tilts worsen retirement odds, not reliably improve them; prioritize liquidity, sequence risk, and inflation-adjusted cash flow.
The panel consensus is that the article's suggestion of using crypto assets like Bitcoin to close the retirement savings gap for those in their 50s is reckless and unreliable. The real issues are stagnant real wage growth, inadequate savings rates due to cost of living, and the need for stable principal preservation in retirement.
None identified.
Sequence-of-returns risk, particularly with volatile assets like Bitcoin near retirement, can permanently impair a thin nest egg.