
Americans Have a 'Magic Number' They Need for Retirement
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Americans believe they need a "magic number" to retire comfortably, far beyond what many have been able to save.
According to a study from Northwestern Mutual that polled more than 4,600 adults in January, Americans think they need $1.26 million to comfortably retire. For those aiming to retire in 30 years, the financial math to reach this goal is sobering.
To attain the $1.26 million retirement goal based on a 7 percent annual return in investments, a person would need to put away approximately $1,035 each month, which amounts to $12,420 annually. If they're saving 15 percent of their income—a commonly recommended target for retirement savings—this would require an annual salary of around $82,800, more than $20,000 more than the national median salary of $61,984.
However, the study reveals that 25 percent of Americans have saved only one year or less of their current annual income for retirement, and over half fear they will outlive their savings. Gen Xers, who are next in line to retire after baby boomers, are particularly concerned, with 54 percent believing they will not be financially prepared when the time comes.
Why Is Retiring Getting Harder?
While commonly touted as the "golden years" of life, a comfortable retirement is becoming out of reach for plenty of Americans. In an era where the cost of living continues to outpace wages and traditional retirement structures have all but vanished, saving for retirement has transformed from a long-term financial goal into a daily struggle for many Americans.
Bobbi Rebell, CFP and personal finance expert at BadCredit.org, frames the situation starkly.
"The recent market downturn, despite its recovery, was a big reminder that retirement funding is fragile," she told Newsweek. "It has never been easy but it has been something that Americans did not have to think about as directly in the past because many had pensions as well as family support systems in place to help control the variables."
That foundation has steadily eroded. Gone are the days when defined benefit pensions formed a safety net for retirees. Today, most workers rely on self-directed savings plans—if they're lucky enough to have access to them at all, Rebell explained.
"Not only have defined benefit plans like pensions become rare," Rebell notes, "but self-directed defined contribution plans, like 401(k)s, are not available for many people who work in the gig economy. It is no wonder people feel vulnerable and are lowering their expectations when it comes to their retirement nest egg."
Composite image created by Newsweek.
Composite image created by Newsweek.
Newsweek Illustration / Canva
Ashley Morgan, a debt and bankruptcy lawyer and owner at Ashley F Morgan Law, echoes the difficulty facing workers, especially in a volatile housing market.
"Cost of living has been steadily on the rise. Saving for retirement is difficult for many with living costs rising and retirement costs being stagnant," she told Newsweek.
She adds that one of the most common retirement strategies—building home equity over time—is increasingly out of reach.
"Now, since younger generations are not buying properties or house prices are so high that mortgage payments are substantial, saving for retirement is not possible when you have a mortgage."
Renters, in particular, are at a disadvantage, often facing rising housing expenses that eat into any potential savings. "With increasing rent," Morgan explains, "it means increases in income are automatically offset, at least to a certain degree."
Another significant challenge is the shift in employment patterns.
"Many people work for smaller companies or perform contracting jobs like gig work," says Morgan. These jobs typically don't offer retirement benefits, and the lack of employer matching makes it less appealing to contribute independently. Frequently changing your job also makes it difficult to accumulate long-term savings.
Then there are student loans—a burden that can linger well into what should be peak retirement savings years. While some of these borrowers have recently been protected by pandemic-era rules that stopped the collection of unpaid education debts, the Trump administration has now ordered the Department of Education to begin resuming forced collections, which can result in wage and Social Security garnishment.
"I unfortunately see people in their 60s still paying student loans, some for their own educations and some for their children," Morgan said. "These student loans often are paid at the expense of saving for retirement."
These compounding factors, which have made saving more difficult, also mean many are working later in life than previous generations.
A 2023 report from the Pew Research Center revealed that about one in five Americans aged 65 and older were still working, almost double the proportion from 35 years ago.
According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, 8.2 million people over 65 were employed in February 2015. By February 2025, that number had grown to 11.1 million, marking a 35 percent increase. A recent study by Transamerica Center for Retirement Studies found that more than half of current workers—52 percent—plan to work at least part-time in retirement.
While acknowledging these challenges, Rebell does see a silver lining in the growing trend of older workers.
"The growing trend of older workers is not necessarily a bad thing. Working gives purpose and can provide an extra layer of financial security," she said. "As people live healthier for longer lives, staying in the workforce longer makes a lot of sense."
But for millions of Americans, working longer may not be a choice, but a necessity. With financial pressures mounting and support systems weakened, the modern retirement landscape is less a peaceful reward for years of work and more a shifting target that is becoming harder and harder to attain.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
26 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Can Buffered ETFs Reshape Portfolio Management?
Financial advisors love the nuance. Investors love the guardrails. With an estimated 11,000 Americans entering retirement every day, financial advisors are leaning hard into the fast-evolving buffered ETF category to offer a more predictable investment ride for seniors and cautious investors. Introduced seven years ago when issuers employed options strategies to limit downside losses in exchange for caps on upside returns, the overall buffered ETF space has grown to $70 billion and includes more than a dozen ETF issuers, according to TMX VettaFi. Buffered ETFs, which are also called defined-outcome strategies because they have preset issue and maturity dates, have emerged as one of the most innovative areas of the ETF space. The innovation, which includes a wide range of downside protection and upside performance parameters, is part of the reason the category took in more than $8 billion during the first half of 2025. But the rapid evolution is also the reason financial advisors need to stay nimble while allocating client assets into these strategies. READ ALSO: Women Advisors Now Make Up 24% of Workforce. There's a Long Way to Go and Art Might Be Beautiful, but Where Does it Fit in Portfolios? We Can Buff That Out In the most basic terms, a buffered ETF will track a broad market index like the S&P 500 and limit the downside loss to a certain percentage while capping the upside return at a certain percentage. But the key is that these ETFs are typically issued monthly and have maturity dates that can range from a few months to a year. In order to receive the full benefit of the guardrails, investors need to hold the ETF for the full duration. And nuances beyond that basic example abound because issuers are constantly innovating. For some ETFs, the downside limit includes protecting the investor from the first 10%, leaving exposure beyond that point. With that structure, if the underlying index was down 15% over the full period, the investor would only suffer a 5% loss. Up, Up and Away. Creativity is also prevalent on the upside caps, which are set based on multiple factors, including market volatility, interest rates and the cost of the options being used. For example, the TrueShares Structured Outcome July ETF (JULZ) does not place limits on the upside return of the underlying S&P 500 during the period, but due to the cost of the options the fund uses, it only pays about 87% of the index return to investors whether the return is low, high or somewhere in the middle. Another example of where this category is heading comes from Innovator ETFs, which offers a kind of hedged downside protection that will pay investors if the underlying index declines. The Innovator Equity Dual Directional 15 Buffer ETF (DDFL) will take almost 50% of the performance on the upside. But if the index is down 15% during the period, the investor will be up 15%, thanks to the inverse performance capture. 'The main reason these products are so popular is we're seeing a move away from the traditional stock and bond portfolio,' said Matt Kaufman, global head of ETFs at Calamos Investments. 'This is about advisors being able to deliver certainty to their clients,' he added. 'The sky's the limit in terms of innovation because there are infinite ways to carve up exposures to a broad underlying index.' Can You Stop Correlating? Brian Storey, head of Multi-Asset Strategies at Brinker Capital Investments, cites the highly correlated market performance of 2022 as an example of why buffered ETFs are gaining appeal among financial advisors and investors. 'Stocks and bonds both delivered negative returns, and that shook the faith of many investors that core bonds could effectively serve as the ballast in their portfolios,' he said. 'This dovetailed with a period of significant innovation and product proliferation in the ETF industry.' The increased correlation between traditional stock and bond allocations is what steered Clark Randall, director of financial planning at Creekmur Wealth Advisors, toward buffered ETFs. 'We have been using buffered ETFs for quite a while in place of fixed income, which has become much higher correlated to equities over the past few years,' he said. 'We have found that buffered ETFs are not as volatile as equities, and they outperform fixed income.' Todd Rosenbluth, head of research at TMX VettaFi, is also seeing a pattern of advisors using buffered ETF strategies as replacements for core portfolio holdings. 'These products are good for people who want equity exposure, but are nervous about the markets,' he said. While Rosenbluth gives ETF issuers credit for providing plenty of detail on their websites about the respective upside and downside limits, he advises: 'These products work best when they are held for the entire period they are set for.' Liquid Diet In essence, even though buffered ETFs have preset maturities, they have daily liquidity, which is something that could trip up less sophisticated inventors. 'I love buffered ETFs, but there is a steep learning curve if you don't buy and hold them, which I don't,' said Paul Schatz, president of Heritage Capital. 'There are nuances in when to sell after the asset rises near the cap and falls near the buffer,' he added. 'There are many ways to use these products, and some behave more like bond proxies.' Brinker Capital's Storey said the pace of evolution in the buffered ETF space requires increasing advisor due diligence. 'One of the drawbacks is that, under the hood, these ETFs are still fairly complex structured products,' he said. 'Without adequately understanding the risks, an investor could just read the headline and not fully appreciate the ways in which the ultimate outcome could deviate from the expectations.' The best thing about buffered ETFs is the 'non-reliance on diversification and the ability to calibrate in deterministic fashion to a desired risk tolerance,' said Ron Piccinini, head of investment research at Amplify. The tradeoff is more work for the advisor because buffered ETFs effectively create a more dynamic portfolio. 'The main negative is that advisors have to manage distance-to-caps during the life of the investment,' Piccinini said. 'If the underlying index rallies and is 1% below the cap, the investor has almost no upside left and is exposed to downside all the way down to the original risk protection level.' Pay Up. Of course, all the sophisticated portfolio engineering required to create those more predictable outcomes doesn't come cheap. Investors can expect to pay expense ratios in the range of 50 basis points or more, which is hefty when considering there are ETFs offering long-only exposure to the S&P 500 Index for just a few basis points. 'You are paying a premium for the ability to control your destiny and for confidence that you will not get hurt in the market,' said Rosenbluth of TMX VettaFi. If investors think that markets will rise over the next 12 months, these are not the products for you, he added. 'But if you're nervous, then it's worth paying the price.' This post first appeared on The Daily Upside. To receive financial advisor news, market insights, and practice management essentials, subscribe to our free Advisor Upside newsletter. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data


The Hill
36 minutes ago
- The Hill
Why you're getting debanked, and how lawmakers can stop it happening
For two decades, I have worked with policymakers and law enforcement in North America and Europe to strengthen the financial safeguards that keep state sponsors of terrorism, violent extremist groups, weapons proliferators and criminal networks from exploiting the U.S. banking system. I have supported tough sanctions. I have pushed to close loopholes that hindered enforcement. And I have worked to hold those who enable illicit finance and trade, wittingly or not, to account. From the beginning, banks have been essential partners in these efforts. Through 'Know Your Customer' procedures and the anti-money laundering laws that followed the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, financial institutions have supplied the data and intelligence that help law enforcement uncover illegal activities such as human-trafficking rings, fentanyl supply chains and terror-financing networks. These frameworks played a critical role in safeguarding the country. Unfortunately, some of the tools intended to identity and stop criminal activity are now targeting and unjustly driving lawful customers lawful customers out of the financial system — a phenomenon widely known as 'debanking.' Most Americans are unaware that any cash transaction over $10,000 triggers the creation of a Currency Transaction Report that is filed with the federal government. That dollar amount threshold was set when Lyndon Johnson was in the White House and, incredibly, has never been updated to account for inflation. In today's economy, $10,000 might barely cover the cost of a used car. Yet banks are still required to flag such transactions, regardless of context, producing millions of reports every year that offer little value to law enforcement. Suspicious Activity Reports are yet another layer of government scrutiny. Banks filed more than 4 million Suspicious Activity Reports just last year, according to the Treasury Department. Former officials concede this avalanche of paperwork does little to improve public safety. In fact, it can create a burden for investigators seeking to identify and separate the truly suspicious activity from the mundane. When enforcement cannot separate the signal from the noise, it becomes dangerous. Meanwhile, regulators continue to pressure banks to apply broad risk labels to entire industries simply because they involve cash-heavy businesses, serve overseas clients or operate in unfavored sectors — all in the name of keeping our financial system 'safe and sound.' This isn't theoretical. Religious charities, international aid organizations and countless immigrant-owned businesses have all faced the threat of debanking. They are not terrorists or criminals. They are fellow Americans being pushed to the financial margins by a system that confuses bureaucracy with vigilance. Congress is beginning to address the problem through the Financial Institution Regulatory Modernization Act. This legislation would increase transparency and accountability in how agencies issue guidance and conduct examinations of financial institutions and their customers. It would help ensure that banks are not penalized for serving lawful customers in politically sensitive sectors. It's an encouraging start, but it will not be enough by itself. The single most effective step policymakers could take today to address the unintended debanking of lawful citizens is to modernize the anti-money laundering framework. Modernization should ensure banks provide relevant and actionable information that truly helps investigators and allows financial institutions to replace box-ticking alerts and reporting with data analysis that spots real patterns of abuse. Banks would still verify identities, monitor accounts and file reports the moment they see suspicious activity. These reforms would sharpen these responsibilities and make our country and the banking industry safer. Further, clear standards would let financial institutions maintain relationships with lawful customers while giving authorities faster access to data when real dangers emerge. The U.S. led the world in building a financial system hostile to terrorist financing and illicit finance. That leadership depends on a financial system that is both secure, credible and widely accessible. When honest actors are pushed out incorrectly, arbitrarily, and without transparency, and financial access is treated as a privilege rather than a right, the foundation of that leadership begins to erode. Policymakers do not need to choose between security and fairness. A modernized anti-money laundering regime would strengthen both. It would allow regulators and institutions to focus attention on those posing a real risk and reduce the burden on both law-abiding financial institutions and their customers I have spent much of my life trying to make America safer by making our financial system harder to exploit. That mission still matters. But the tools we built decades ago are not suited to today's challenges. Without reform, the anti-money laundering regime will continue to fail in its most basic duty: distinguishing between friend and foe. Congress and the administration should act now. The stakes are too high to allow inertia to carry the day. regulations.


Newsweek
38 minutes ago
- Newsweek
New Destinations: Global Travel and Tourism Leaders 2025
Travel is changing, and the industry is adapting to satisfy a generation seeking authenticity and quality experiences in new destinations. Globally, tourism is back above pre-pandemic levels. COVID-19 wiped out 1.1 billion trips in 2020, so the turnaround is remarkable. Europe has bounced back, with Southeast Asia and Africa a little slower to recover. In the USA, President Donald Trump's January return has cooled demand. The World Travel & Tourism Council expects foreign visitor spending to fall 7 percent this year; visits from Canada are projected to plummet by about 20 percent. If the pandemic was an earthquake in travel, the industry is praying this will prove to be only a minor tremor. To take the temperature in travel and gauge where the momentum is headed, we interviewed 71 top executives from around the world. Their verdict is clear: travel is booming once again, but the landscape has changed forever. We examine the rise of low-cost flights, online travel agents and the return of business travel. As we share these leaders' insights within this special report, buckle up and enjoy the ride! This report has been paid for by a third party. The views and opinions expressed are not those of Newsweek and are not an endorsement of the products, services or persons mentioned. Click here to download the full report