Women Could Face More Savings Shortfalls than Men

Hewitt Associates research said that not only will women need more retirement savings than men, but the gap between what they need and their savings is greater than the gap for men.

The study said both women and men are on track to replace 85% of pay at retirement, assuming average life expectancy; however, women need to replace 130% of their final pay, while men need to replace 123% of pay at retirement. When factoring in differences in longevity, the gap of unpreparedness grows even greater for women, a press release said.

Hewitt claimed the average women will need to save 2% of pay more than men to have the same standard of living in retirement. It noted that not only do women make less on average than their male counterparts, but they are expected to live an average of three years longer than men.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Other factors contributing to a lack of retirement readiness for women is they save less than men and invest less aggressively. The Hewitt research found the average 401(k) plan balance for women is $56,320—nearly $47,000 less than the average for men—and women contribute, on average, 7.3% of pay compared with 8.1% for men. Additionally, 30% of women did not contribute to their 401(k) plans in 2007, and another 24% did not contribute enough to get full company match.

Women invest less in riskier investments (65% verse 71% for men), and they are half as likely as men to make trades (13% verse 24%).

In addition, Hewitt noted that women wait two to four years longer than men to start saving for retirement, and are more likely to move in and out of the workforce, making their savings patterns “spotty.”


See also:Women Start Planning Early for Retirement, Women Look to Advisers, Internet for Financial Information


What You See is What You Putt

Players who have a good golf day might also have judged the hole to be bigger in size, new research says.

According to a study from researchers at Purdue University and the University of Virginia, performance affects the perceived size of an action’s target.

Golf players who perceived the hole to be bigger received lower scores than golf players who perceived the hole to be smaller, the study says. Players who saw the hole as bigger actually took fewer putts to get the ball in the 18th hole. The researchers didn’t see any correlation in driving or hitting—just putting.

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

But that doesn’t mean Tiger Woods owes it all to his perception of the size of the hole; it just means that on any given day a golf player might see the hole as bigger when he is playing well, the researchers say. In fact, there was no correlation to the overall skill of the player and the perception. (The study looked at “limited to relatively unskilled’ golfers, anyway.) The perceived hole size could have something to do with their confidence or attitude about themselves, the report suggests.

The results were similar to a previous study that found significant correlation between batting average and the judged ball size. The golf study reinforces the idea that perception and performance have something to do with the other.

Yet the question remains: Do golfers put better because they see the hole as bigger or do they see the hole as bigger and therefore putt better? Something to ponder before your next swing.

«