Study: Women Say Competing Priorities Hinder Retirement Saving

Although women live longer than men, many retire earlier than planned and few can save enough to reach the income replacement levels as men in retirement.


Retirement planning has been complicated by volatile markets and high inflation, but it may be worse for women, new Goldman Sachs data shows.


Many women struggle to save adequately for retirement in the face of competing responsibilities, according to the Goldman Sachs Retirement Survey & Insights Report 2022, Navigating the Financial Vortex: Women & Retirement Security.

The survey finds women more are more likely than men to say that competing responsibilities negatively impact their retirement savings efforts.

Goldman Sachs data shows 50% of women say their retirement savings are behind schedule, compared to 35% of men, 14% of women are very confident in being able to reach their retirement saving goals versus 27% of men who said the same and 33% of women are concerned they will not be able to reach their retirement goals, compared to 19% of men.

Time spent out of the workforce to care for children or family members is one important factor contributing to the retirement savings challenge for many women, the research shows. Two four-year periods out of the workforce — one mid-career and one later — can lower retirement savings by up to 35%, the survey finds.

“Women more often than men are forced to work part-time, spend time out of the workforce to care for young children and elderly family members, and juggle other financial priorities during their careers,” Candice Tse, global head of strategic advisory solutions at Goldman Sachs Asset Management, said in a press release. “This can make their journey to retirement more difficult and incredibly personal.”

The gender pay gap contributes to women being less financially prepared for retirement, the report noted. Bureau of Labor Statistics data showed that although women comprise 47% of the workforce, they earn 21% lower lifetime income than men, 2016 Joint Economic Committee research on gender pay inequality found, according to figures cited in the Goldman report.

Goldman research also cited that women’s lifetime retirement contributions, on average, are 30% less than men, Government Accountability Office data showed.

“Women must also navigate the added complexity of longer life expectancy and therefore, need their savings to last longer, putting more pressure on their retirement finances,” the report stated.

Although 47% of women respondents to the survey said they felt on track or ahead of schedule for their retirement savings, 64% of men said the same, the research shows.

While women in the U.S. live, on average, three years longer than men — according to a January 2021 Social Security Administration factsheet – they can be expected to need more savings for a comfortable retirement, yet among retired women, 58% report they collect 50% or less of their pre-retirement income, including Social Security, compared to 44% of men, the survey finds. Goldman Sachs research also shows 20% of women reached 70% of their pre-retirement income, versus 30% of men who reached this amount.

The survey also finds 61% of women retired earlier than planned — compared to 50% of men — with 66% who said they retired for reasons outside of their control: 29% cited health reasons, 16% to take care of family and 15% that their job was no longer available.

Goldman survey data also shows few women retired because they had reached a retirement savings goal, as 15% of women left the workforce because their “savings were sufficient to fund my retirement” versus 25% of men.

Data for the report was gathered for Goldman Sachs by Qualtrics Experience Management, among 1,566 respondents between July and August. Participants included 967 working individuals across generations and 599 retired individuals ages 50-75, with responses reported by gender for both populations.

Democrats Suggest SEC Should Reform Scope 3 Climate Disclosure Proposal

Scope 3 disclosure requirements are losing support in Congress.


House Democrats signaled their skepticism of Scope 3 climate risk disclosure in a hearing held by the Investor Protection, Entrepreneurship and Capital Markets Subcommittee of the House Committee on Financial Services last week.

In March, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed a rule that would require public companies to disclose information about their “climate-related risks that are reasonably likely to have a material impact on their business.” The proposal would require public companies to disclose information about their own direct greenhouse gas emissions, indirect emissions produced as a result of the companies’ electricity consumption and emissions generated its supply chain. These dimensions are referred to as Scope 1, Scope 2 and Scope 3 disclosures, respectively. This rule has not been finalized.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

At the December 8 hearing, Subcommittee Chairman Brad Sherman, D-California, said, “Scope 1 and Scope 2 being proposed by the SEC, I think, make a lot of sense. It is going to be hard to go into Scope 3, and that may be a bridge too far; it may give us effects far beyond what we are trying to achieve.”

Sherman is far from alone in this opinion. A letter by Representative Cynthia Axne, D-Iowa, signed by four other House Democrats in October, also expressed concern about Scope 3. In particular, the letter called for clarity and greater protections for farms and small businesses that would have to collect data for their publicly listed customers and suppliers.

Democratic opposition to the Scope 3 provision in the SEC proposal is important because Republican lawmakers have been targeting this provision for months as part of their general opposition to the SEC effort. Weakening Democratic support for Scope 3 could make it more likely that the provision will be dropped from any final rule.

The Scope 3 provision is particularly controversial because it would require private businesses that are not registered with the SEC to collect data on their emissions so that they can provide it to public companies, which could be a tedious and expensive process. Scope 3 is very important for climate risk data collection, however, because for many businesses the majority of their emissions come from their suppliers.

Opposition to the Scope 3 proposal is especially acute for small businesses since they argue they are less able to bear the compliance costs of the proposal. The Small Business Investor Alliance is also concerned that many public firms will feel obligated to report Scope 3 emissions, even if the proposal does not actually apply to them. In comments filed to the SEC, the organization wrote, “As other commenters have pointed out, the materiality ‘threshold’ used in the Proposal is amorphous, and most companies will likely feel obligated to report Scope 3 information.”

Professor Shivaram Rajgopal of Columbia University noted during his testimony to the subcommittee hearing that a publicly listed pizza company would likely have to collect emissions data from independent delivery drivers in order to be compliant with Scope 3. Rajgopal was invited to testify by the House Democrats, who constitute a majority of the subcommittee.

Some of this concern over Scope 3 may be overestimated, however. The SEC’s proposal allows for “reasonable estimates” of Scope 3 emissions, provided the registrant discloses the assumptions behind their estimate, obviating the need for precise measurements, while also reducing the value of the data produced.

The Scope 3 provision also only applies to registrants that have an emissions goal or for which Scope 3 emissions are a material factor for their investors. Registered funds, for example, would only need to collect Scope 3 data if environmental factors are significant in investment selection or the fund is trying to achieve a specific environmental impact, the SEC said.

«