New Investor Center - This content requires the free Adobe Flash player.
Bills © moodboard/Corbis

Extra10/7/2009 12:01 AM ET

How long until your nest egg recovers?

Rebuilding your retirement portfolio may not take as long as you think -- if you keep saving. And the more you save, the sooner you'll dig out of the hole.

By U.S. News & World Report

When it comes to investing, climbing out of a hole always takes a lot longer than falling in.

It has been well over a year since the worst crisis in decades rocked Wall Street, sending nearly every class of financial asset -- from stocks to bonds to real estate -- into a tailspin. Markets have managed to claw back from some of those substantial losses, but nearly everyone is still feeling poorer than just a few years ago.

So where do average investors stand today when it comes to regaining all that lost investment, especially the millions of Americans nearing retirement age? In many cases, they're still digging out.

What we've lost

No doubt about it: Most older Americans are struggling to recover from their investment losses. The question is how long it will take for portfolios to rebound. Jack VanDerhei, the research director of the Employee Benefit Research Institute, took a look at battered 401k plans and estimated what it might take to return to pre-crisis account balances.

First, some facts about the damage done: VanDerhei says the median decline for 401k plans that posted losses between Jan. 1, 2008, and early August 2009 for investors ages 45 to 64 was 19.6%, or a median loss of $12,386. Losses in retirement plans were less horrific than the broader equity market because most 401k accounts have some allocations to bonds. But the pain was generally worse for older workers, who have larger retirement savings. For them, the dollar loss was bigger, even with more conservative allocations.

So, how long do older workers need to wait to see a full recovery in their 401k's? That depends on two major factors: how much they can save and how quickly markets grow. The key will be savings.

How contributions help

Let's look at an example of how bigger contributions can help. If, at the start of 2008, Susie Smith had $100,000 in retirement savings, as of Aug. 6, the value of her retirement account would have fallen to $80,400. If she contributes 5% of her account value annually, or $4,020 per year, it will take her one year and nine months to return to 2008 levels, assuming an 8% return, VanDerhei estimates. If she contributes 10% -- or $8,040 -- her account will recover in one year and four months, he says.

Let's take a look at the role of returns. Eight percent a year is an above-average gain for many portfolios, so what happens if long-term economic damage caused by the recession conspires to keep markets rising at a slower-than-normal pace -- say, 4% a year? Then, an employee with 20 years at a company contributing 10% of his or her account balance each year would still be able to recover in just over a year and a half. An 8% return cuts the recovery time to a year and a month.

Video: Will older workers have the money to retire?

Still, just getting back to 2008 levels is cold comfort for many retirees also facing an uncertain economy, especially if an unforeseen event like a spouse's job loss threatens savings habits. But it's important to resist tempting options like reducing retirement contributions. In fact, that may be the worst possible decision.

A halt in new contributions to an existing 401k right now for workers with 20 years at their employer pushes the recovery time to two years and 10 months at an 8% return. If the market slows to a 4% return, getting back to 2008 levels could take a painful five years and nine months, VanDerhei says. That's a lot of time, especially for people who have only a handful of years left before retirement.

Luckily, few investors have stopped contributing altogether, though many are putting in less after employers pulled back on matching employee contributions.

Continued: Reconsidering a safe retirement plan

 1 | 2 | next >

Rate this Article

Click on one of the stars below to rate this article from 1 (lowest) to 5 (highest). LowRate it 1Rate it 2Rate it 3Rate it 4Rate it 5High

Glossary Search

Need answers fast? Find definitions for investing or financial terms.

Feature requires Adobe Flash Player
U.S. News  on MSN Money
Fund data provided by Morningstar, Inc. © 2009. All rights reserved.
StockScouter data provided by Gradient Analytics, Inc.
Quotes supplied by Interactive Data.
MSN Money's editorial goal is to provide a forum for personal finance and investment ideas. Our articles, columns, message board posts and other features should not be construed as investment advice, nor does their appearance imply an endorsement by Microsoft of any specific security or trading strategy. An investor's best course of action must be based on individual circumstances.
Join the discussion!
Sort by:
1 - 10 of 30
Tuesday, October 06, 2009 9:31:09 PM

If you are like me, you have been putting money in your 401K, IRA or Pensions for some time.  If you were invested during the boom of the 1990s, you experienced 14% or better returns over that decade.  With 8% being the norm for equities, there was bound to be a correction and when it came, you saw your annualized returns from 1990 drop to 8%.  As disappointing as it was, it is the normal long term returns for most Equity funds and over the last 6 months, the rebound has recovered much of that loss, if you did not sell at the low.  If your long term equity investment returns are now over 8% annualized, you are fine and can continue to plan your retirement as planned.  Remember, you will probably live another 30 years after retirement and will only draw 4% per year of your total portfolio still allowing the 8% return to continue to give you a 4% growth until inflation forces you to draw a higher percentage.  Social Security and Medicare will continue to help reduce the amount you must draw each year provided they continue to be funded.

 I am 62 years old and retired when I was 55.  I had two pensions from my Union and at age 62 started to receive Social Security and a third employer pension.  All were invested in Equities and bonds.   

Wednesday, October 07, 2009 6:41:01 AM

This article makes it sound so easy but there is a problem. The problem is with the word "IF". If the market grows at a specific rate and If neither spouse loses their job or has to take a cut in either pay or hours and If neither spouse gets sick or has an accident and If inflation does not strike and If taxes don't increase and If loan or credit card rates don't climb . . . etc. This is not a perfect world folks and we know that some specific negatives are going to hit. Let me give you an example:

 

A recent headline read: "Obama: Global economy ‘back from the brink’"

This is so scary! The man simply has no clue what so ever . . . . or does he?.

We have not even hit the worst of it yet and he is claiming to have brought us back from the brink. Here is what is coming folks:

(1) At least one more round of foreclosures because he has done nothing to promote legislation to help create jobs in America, Keep jobs in America, or bring jobs back to America and he could have promoted and requested such legislation from Congress.

(2) Failed mortgages on commercial properties will be the number two item to hit us and it will hit us hard.

(3) More bank failures are on the way and again . . . a very hard hit.

(4) Insolvency of the FDIC, which has already started. The FDIC is currently active in trying to borrow the taxpayer dollars the government used to bail the banks out, back from the banks. Nice isn't it when they borrow our money and then charge us a much higher rate of interest to loan it back to us?

(5) Continued rising numbers of unemployed American Taxpayers - more jobs are being lost every day than are being created and with the restrictive laws we have in place, it isn't likely to change soon.

(6) Inflation - it is not possible to hold off forever the inflation we are bound to experience from the insane level of spending that this administration has been doing. Eventually, the piper must be paid. Some economists are predicting hyperinflation. Even if we do not experience hyperinflation, we will almost certainly experience inflation that will surpass the worst seen during the Carter years. The question is when . . . not if.

 

So, the question is “Is he really that stupid or is this just another line of BS from the Whitehouse propaganda machine”? My suggestion is to pull in whatever you can convert to ready cash and sit on it in a guaranteed interest rate account of some type. The market will drop below 7,000 long before it ever hits 14,000.

 

Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:01:57 AM
now,we must save the money by our best ! Smile
Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:11:32 AM
we must save the money for our best !
Wednesday, October 07, 2009 7:58:20 AM

Downturns are what make dollar-cost averaging work. If you are more than 5 yrs from retirement contributing during a recession is how you get more bang for your $$. Over the long term it pays off - it did for us and many others. The deck has always been stacked against the 'little guy' - you have to make the best use of what tools you do have: patience and compounding.

 

People who whine about Obama are probably the same people who didn't object to Bush/Cheney running up a $1 Trillion off-balance sheet war. Like JFK once famously quipped, "Are these our problems or did we inherit them?"

Wednesday, October 07, 2009 8:20:08 AM

I'm sorry, this is where I stopped reading:

 

"So, how long do older workers need to wait to see a full recovery in their 401k's? That depends on two major factors: how much they can save and how quickly markets grow."

 

Does this really need to be stated or is it just common sense?

Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:42:15 AM
Just telll me, where is Susie Smith (in the example) getting that safe steady predictable 8% return today? (I want to invest there too.) And, how do we know that Susie, our "older" American, has any earnings at all? Or, at 55-plus, is she basically unemployable, or hanging on by her fingernails to a job that could end any day, and terrified to put her savings anywhere but a bank account, earning 2%?
Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:47:11 AM
you are retarded! if I have to contribute 8% to get my account back up to the $100,000 it did not RECOVER I added more of my own money. How in the hell does that make up for the loss? Lets see if I loose $100 just put in another and now its back? Do the math idiot. A market loss is only recovered when the MARKET adds the interest for it to grow back.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:47:42 AM
I'm sorry but this whole thing is stupid.  What is gone is gone.  You can't recover what has been lost by new contribution.  If you lost 40% of your investments dues to the crash from over 14000 to under 7000.  Those amounts to years of contributions that had vanished and you can never get them back.  The only way you could truly get back what is has been lost is if the markets went back to over 14000 and you where still invested in the same assets before the crash.  Wall street tells you that market has had a gain since it fell.  Come on! There can be no actual gain until the loss is recovered.  So by my estimate we are somewhere at -35% to -25% gain.
Wednesday, October 07, 2009 9:55:09 AM
My current investment strategy is to not lose any more money.  Honestly, a 2% gain looks pretty darn good to me compared to a 20% loss.
1 - 10 of 30
To add a comment, pleasesign in