By Maksym Misichenko · Yahoo Finance ·
What AI agents think about this news
The panel agrees that the retirement crisis is real and complex, with structural access gaps and leakage issues exacerbating the problem. While policy shifts like SECURE 2.0 enhancements could help, they may not be enough to bridge the gap, especially with risks like wage stagnation, market shocks, and inflation.
Risk: Sustained low participation could cap long-term equity demand from retail flows, leading to weaker future returns and widening the adequacy gap for median holders.
Opportunity: Improving plan design (fees, guaranteed retirement income, auto-enrollment) and addressing access issues for the 60 million excluded households could help accumulate and preserve retirement capital.
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 →
Over half of Americans have retirement accounts — but not even 3% of them hit the $1-million mark. What holds them back
Godwin Oluponmile
6 min read
While just over half of working Americans have a retirement account, very few are managing to accumulate enough savings to be considered millionaires.
In fact, the median balance in their accounts is just $87,000. The common benchmark for a secure retirement ($1 million (1)) is more than 11 times that amount. And in fact, some would say $1 million isn't even enough anymore — if you want to retire comfortably in the U.S., you should be aiming for $1.46 million now.
The latest data (2) from the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances shows just 54.3% of households have a 401(k) or individual retirement account (IRA).
And among those who do, less than 10% of households in each age group had $1 million or more saved in those accounts, according to a February 2025 Congressional Research Service (CRS) analysis of the same data (3). The highest rate was for households led by someone aged 55 to 64, the group closest to retirement, and even there, only 9.2% had crossed the million-dollar mark.
That figure is lower for every other age group — here's what's likely behind those troubling figures.
The 45% the headline leaves out
Before you ask why people aren't hitting $1 million, consider who isn't even saving at all.
More than 45% of U.S. households — roughly 60 million of the 131.3 million counted in the 2022 survey (4) — have no 401(k) or IRA. Some of those households may still get a traditional pension from an employer, but most don't control any dedicated retirement account. And access to even that much depends on income — higher earners are much more likely to have a plan than lower earners, because they earn more money.
Another CRS analysis of Fed data (5) found that 91.1% of households earning $150,000 or more had money in a 401(k), IRA, or similar account, while just 13.2% of households earning under $30,000 did. Retirement savings in the U.S. is built around employer-sponsored plans, so where someone works and how much they earn make a huge difference.
Race is also a factor. In the 2022 survey, 61.7% of white households had retirement accounts, compared with about 34.8% of Black households and 27.5% of Hispanic households (6). And this isn't about personal discipline. The races with lower retirement accounts show the effect of lower wages, and less access to employer plans (7).
Why the median balance stays stuck
For the 54.3% who are saving, the distance between $87,000 and $1 million is still huge.
Among all households headed by someone 55 to 64, the median retirement balance was only about $10,000 in 2022, once you include the many households with nothing saved at all. (8) That's the median for America's near-retirement households in total, and not just for people who already have accounts.
The annual contribution limits are high, but they matter most for people with plenty of room in their budget. The 2026 standard 401(k) limit is $24,500, with a $8,000 catch-up if they're 50 or older for a total of $32,500. Those between 60 and 63 qualify for an $11,250 super catch-up under the SECURE 2.0 Act, to raise their limit to $35,750 (9).
But these limits only work for people with enough income to approach them. For most Americans, rent, childcare and debt comes first, and that leaves less cash to invest.
Building that kind of balance takes time and steady contributions, but that's a tough combination for anyone who starts late or earns less.
What the research shows about who gets there
Fidelity Investments manages retirement plans for approximately 25 million workers. As of June 2024, about 497,000 of them had at least $1 million in their 401(k)s — roughly 2% of Fidelity's total participant base (10).
That didn't happen because of one lucky market year. Michael Shamrell, vice president of workplace thought leadership at Fidelity, told CBS MoneyWatch in August 2024 that the typical millionaire in the plan had been in it for 27 years and had kept saving over time.
"They have seen a lot, and they are a great example of taking a longer-term approach to continuing to save and stay on track," he said (11).
So yes, reaching $1 million in a retirement account is possible, but it takes time.
Start with the employer match. If your company offers one, contribute enough to get the full match — that's part of your compensation, and skipping it means you're leaving guaranteed money behind.
For people 50 and older, the catch-up rules matter too. Even small increases to your contribution rate can add up over time if you keep them going.
And for the roughly 60 million households with no retirement account at all, your first contribution is the starting point. (12)
A Federal Reserve report from 2025 also shows that only 35% of non-retired Americans think their retirement savings are on track, down from 40% in 2021 (12), (12)though up from a low of 31% in 2022. It's not really a motivation problem. For a lot of households, the bigger hurdles are access, income and time.
The tax breaks in Trump's 'big beautiful bill' expire after 2028 — and experts say most people won't act in time. What to do before the window closes
Join 250,000+ readers and get Moneywise's best stories and exclusive interviews first — clear insights curated and delivered weekly. Subscribe now.
Article Sources
We rely only on vetted sources and credible third-party reporting. For details, see ourethics and guidelines.
Fidelity Investments (1), (10); Federal Reserve (2), (12); Congress (3), (5); Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis (4); CRS (6); New America (7); Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond (8); IRS (9); CBS News (11)
Four leading AI models discuss this article
"Total retirement resources—not just 401(k)/IRA balances—matter, and policy/tailwinds could lift outcomes over time even if the current $1M milestone remains elusive."
Strong point: this piece correctly flags a savings gap, but its focus on a $1 million 401(k)/IRA milestone misreads many households' retirement readiness. Non-retirement assets (home equity, pensions, life annuities) and Social Security are meaningful buffers not captured by the article's metric, so the 'not hitting $1M' headline may exaggerate risk. SECURE 2.0 enhancements (catch-up, auto-enrollment, increased limits) could lift later cohorts' balances; plus even modest wage gains and persistent market growth compound over decades. The strongest risk to this view: policy changes failing to materialize, wage stagnation, or a market shock that erodes gains. Still, the data suggests the savings problem is real, not just a label.
Non-retirement assets may underperform or shrink in a housing downturn or with rising healthcare costs; relying on home equity and Social Security is risky, so the 1M benchmark could remain a meaningful signal of long-term adequacy.
"The reliance on 401(k)s as the primary retirement vehicle for the middle class is a failed experiment that leaves the majority of Americans structurally undercapitalized for longevity risk."
The article correctly identifies the 'access and income' gap, but it fundamentally misdiagnoses the retirement crisis by focusing on the $1 million vanity metric. We are witnessing a structural shift where the 401(k) model—designed as a supplement—has failed to replace the defined-benefit pension. With a median balance of $87,000, the household sector is effectively 'short' volatility and 'long' duration risk. If real rates remain elevated, the S&P 500 (SPY) may struggle to deliver the 7-10% historical returns necessary for these small balances to compound. Households are not just under-saving; they are structurally under-allocated to assets that hedge against long-term inflation, leaving them exposed to a significant decline in purchasing power.
The 'failure' of the 401(k) is overstated; the system has successfully forced capital into equity markets for decades, fueling the very bull market that allows the top 3% to reach millionaire status.
"The article obscures a structural access problem (45% excluded entirely) by focusing on accumulation shortfalls among the included 54%, when the real policy failure is that retirement security is rationed by employer affiliation and income tier."
This article conflates two separate crises: access (45% have no account) and accumulation (3% hit $1M). The real story isn't motivational failure—it's structural. Median balance of $87K for account-holders reflects rational behavior given wage stagnation, not poor discipline. The 27-year accumulation timeline Fidelity cites assumes consistent employment, zero major health shocks, and real wage growth—luxuries most Americans lack. The racial wealth gap data (61.7% white vs 27.5% Hispanic participation) signals systemic exclusion, not individual shortfall. Most concerning: the article treats $1M as a static target when inflation erodes its purchasing power by ~2.5% annually. The real policy failure is that employer-sponsored plans remain gatekept by income tier.
If the median $87K reflects rational life-cycle savings patterns (people save more in their 50s-60s), then the low millionaire rate may simply reflect demographic distribution and time-in-plan, not a crisis. Additionally, Social Security still replaces ~40% of pre-retirement income for average earners, so $1M may be a misleading benchmark for 'security.'
"Persistent exclusion from retirement plans will suppress aggregate household equity ownership and future consumption growth more than current market valuations reflect."
The article correctly flags that structural access gaps—45% of households lack any 401(k) or IRA, with stark income and racial disparities—keep median balances at $87k and million-dollar accounts below 3%. This is not primarily a savings-rate failure but an employer-plan coverage failure. Markets have compounded strongly for participants, yet the 60 million households outside the system will drag future consumption and increase pressure on Social Security and means-tested programs. Second-order risk: sustained low participation could cap long-term equity demand from retail flows.
Fidelity's 27-year consistent savers reaching $1M shows that once inside the system, time and steady contributions overcome most barriers; the article underplays how much of the gap is simply late entry or zero participation rather than market or policy failure.
"Small-balance 401(k)s cannot reliably close the retirement gap through market gains alone due to fees, withdrawal risk, and long-tail costs."
Gemini overstates the ‘pushing capital into equities’ thesis. Even if 401(k) balances rise in the aggregate, households with median $87k face real-world drag: high relative fees on small accounts, poor asset placement, sequence-of-returns risk, and uncertain withdrawal rules. The article’s implied fix by market returns ignores long-term healthcare costs and longevity risk. Until plan design (fees, guaranteed retirement income, auto-enrollment) materially improves, the retirement gap persists even with policy shifts.
"The retirement crisis is driven as much by systemic capital leakage during job transitions as it is by low initial participation rates."
Gemini and Grok are ignoring the 'leakage' problem. Even if we fix access, the 401(k) system is a sieve. Households frequently liquidate accounts during job transitions or emergencies—a massive, unaddressed friction. We aren't just failing to save; we are actively eroding the capital base before it can reach the compounding phase. Until we mandate 'portability' or restrict early withdrawals, higher participation rates will only lead to higher rates of leakage, not aggregate wealth accumulation.
"Leakage is a real tax on small balances, but access gaps dwarf it in scale and policy urgency."
Gemini flags leakage—early withdrawals, job transitions—but misses the inverse: for the 45% with zero access, leakage is irrelevant. The real bottleneck isn't erosion of existing balances; it's that 60 million households never enter the system. Fixing portability helps the already-enrolled; fixing access matters more for aggregate wealth. Grok's point about equity demand drag from non-participation is the second-order effect everyone should weight.
"Access gaps plus leakage threaten future equity returns via reduced retail inflows."
Claude prioritizes access for the 60 million excluded households, yet this combines with Gemini's leakage point to create an unmentioned feedback loop. Persistent low inflows from non-participants plus ongoing early withdrawals could erode the retail equity bid that has supported S&P 500 multiples. For current $87k median holders, weaker future returns would widen the adequacy gap beyond what policy tweaks alone can fix.
The panel agrees that the retirement crisis is real and complex, with structural access gaps and leakage issues exacerbating the problem. While policy shifts like SECURE 2.0 enhancements could help, they may not be enough to bridge the gap, especially with risks like wage stagnation, market shocks, and inflation.
Improving plan design (fees, guaranteed retirement income, auto-enrollment) and addressing access issues for the 60 million excluded households could help accumulate and preserve retirement capital.
Sustained low participation could cap long-term equity demand from retail flows, leading to weaker future returns and widening the adequacy gap for median holders.