MFS surveyed 1,000 American savers and retirees this summer. Confidence in retiring on time jumped 13 points in a year. Three other figures in the same survey say almost nothing about actual preparedness changed.
Forty-one percent of American workplace retirement plan participants now say they are very or extremely confident they will be able to retire at the age they want. That is up 13 percentage points from 2025 and the highest reading in recent years (MFS Investment Management, 2026).
The same survey found that nearly three-quarters of those participants expect to save more than they originally planned, 60% expect to work longer than planned, and 75% say competing financial priorities stop them from saving enough for retirement.
Those are not two different groups of people. They are the same respondents, in the same survey, answering in the same sitting. Confidence rose sharply. The facts underneath it did not change.
Jeri Savage, lead retirement strategist at MFS, stated the problem plainly: "Retirement confidence is encouraging, but confidence alone does not guarantee retirement readiness."
This post works through what the survey actually measured, which groups the readiness gap hits hardest, why a confidence number can rise while nothing else does, and what closing a readiness gap actually requires. The short version: readiness is not a feeling, and it is not a balance. It is an income question.
Every figure below comes from the same MFS survey, fielded June 4 to August 24, 2026 among 700 active plan participants and 300 retirees.
The survey polled people aged 18 and over who were actively contributing to a 401(k), 403(b), 457, or 401(a) plan, plus a separate group of 300 retirees. It was run as a 15-minute online survey by Core Data.
That matters for how the confidence number should be read. These are not people who have opted out of retirement saving. They are active contributors, the group most likely to be on track, and fewer than half of them say they are confident of retiring on time.
Set the 41% against the other answers and the picture resolves. Three-quarters already know they need to save more than their plan assumed. Six in ten already expect to work past their target date. Three-quarters say something else in their financial life is taking the money first.
A person can hold all of those views at once and still report confidence, because the confidence question asks about an outcome while the other questions ask about the inputs. Agreeing to work longer is one way to stay confident about retiring eventually. It is not evidence that the plan improved.
Inflation was the leading concern across every generation in the survey. That is the clearest single signal that the underlying pressure has not eased.
| Very or extremely confident | 41% |
| Change versus 2025 | +13 pts |
| Need to save more than planned | ~75% |
| Expect to work longer | 60% |
| Competing priorities block saving | 75% |
| Gen X, least confident cohort | 32% |
Survey of 700 active workplace plan participants and 300 retirees in the United States, conducted by Core Data for MFS Investment Management between June 4 and August 24, 2026. Figures are self-reported.
The question MFS asked is about expectation: how confident are you that you will be able to retire at the age you want. It is a prediction about the future, and predictions respond to mood, to recent market headlines, and to how a person has quietly revised the question in their own head.
Readiness is a different measurement entirely. It asks what a given balance produces in monthly income, for how long, and what happens to that income if the owner lives to 95 or if inflation runs above forecast. Those are arithmetic questions with fixed answers.
The two numbers can move in opposite directions without either one being wrong. A participant who decides this year that working until 69 instead of 66 is acceptable has genuinely become more confident of retiring at the age they want, because the age they want has changed. Sixty percent of this survey's respondents said they expect to work longer than planned. That revision is, mechanically, one of the things that can produce a 13-point confidence jump.
Three-quarters of participants said competing financial priorities prevent them from saving adequately for retirement. The survey coverage identifies what those priorities are: inflation, housing costs, and emergency savings needs, with the mix shifting by age.
This is the number that should be read as the readiness signal rather than the confidence number, because it describes present behaviour rather than future expectation. It says that for three in four active contributors, the contribution rate is being set by what is left over, not by what the retirement target requires.
A plan funded by the remainder is a plan with no defined endpoint. It can run for thirty years and still leave the saver without a clear answer to the only question that matters at 65: what does this produce per month, guaranteed, for as long as I live.
The aggregate 41% hides a wide spread. Millennials reported 46% confidence, Gen Z 44%, baby boomers 42%, and Gen X just 32%. Gen X, the 46 to 61 cohort, is both the least confident and the closest to retirement among the groups still in full accumulation.
The gender spread is wider still. Forty-seven percent of men reported being very or extremely confident, against 33% of women. One-third of women reported taking time away from the workforce, against roughly one-quarter of men, largely for caregiving. A career interruption is not a confidence problem. It is a contribution-years problem, and it shows up directly in the balance.
For pre-retirees and retirees between 55 and 75, the relevant read is that the two groups closest to the decision point are also the two reporting the least certainty about it.
The same survey, broken out by cohort. Each group reports a different reason the saving is not happening.
Gen X reported the lowest confidence of any cohort at 32%, roughly 14 points below millennials. Housing costs were identified as their primary competing priority. This is the group with the fewest remaining contribution years before a traditional retirement date and the least margin for a plan that is still underfunded.
One-third of women reported time away from the workforce, compared with about one-quarter of men, largely due to caregiving. Fewer contribution years and fewer compounding years produce a smaller balance at the same savings rate. The survey also found women were less likely to review their retirement holdings.
Eighty-five percent of Gen Z respondents said day-to-day obligations and emergency savings needs prevent them from saving adequately, the highest of any cohort. Their confidence reading of 44% is above the national average, which is the clearest single illustration of confidence and readiness moving independently.
Half of baby boomer respondents still reported that competing obligations limit their retirement saving, with older boomers citing unexpected healthcare expenses. This is the cohort either at or past traditional retirement age, where the accumulation question has largely closed and the distribution question is the live one.
Every figure in the MFS survey is about accumulation: save more, work longer, competing priorities. None of them answer the question a 65-year-old actually faces, which is what the accumulated balance pays per month for as long as the owner lives.
That distinction is not academic. A balance can be large and still produce uncertain income if the withdrawal rate is set by guesswork, and a smaller balance can produce a known monthly figure if part of it is converted into a contractual income stream. Readiness is the second measurement, not the first.
When MFS asked participants which financial wellness topics they most wanted help with, retirement income planning ranked most important overall, ahead of healthcare costs and Social Security for older workers and ahead of budgeting for younger ones. People are already asking the income question. The survey's confidence number just does not measure it.
A single premium immediate annuity converts a lump sum into a fixed monthly payment for life. It is an insurance product, not an investment, and the payment is set at purchase based on age, sex, state, and the carrier's current rates.
Worked example, rates as of October 1, 2026:
$100,000 placed in a life-only single premium immediate annuity at age 65 was paying up to $693 per month for a man, $658 per month for a woman, and $608 per month for a couple with 100% of the payment continuing to the survivor (lifeannuities.us SPIA Payout Index, October 1, 2026).
At $693 per month, the annual income is $693 x 12 = $8,316, which is an 8.32% annual payout rate on the $100,000 premium.
That payout rate is not an interest rate and should never be compared with one. It blends return of the original principal with interest and with mortality pooling, which is why it exceeds any fixed annuity rate on the market. The tradeoff is that the $100,000 is no longer available as a lump sum.
Availability, payout amounts, and terms vary by carrier and by state, and rates are subject to change without notice.
Run that against the survey's own framing. A participant who says they need to work three years longer is, in effect, saying they need more monthly income than their current balance produces. Converting a portion of the balance into guaranteed income answers the same question from the other direction, by raising the income the existing balance produces rather than raising the balance.
It does not say an immediate annuity is the right answer for any particular person. Converting a lump sum into a lifetime payment is irreversible in most cases, it removes that money from the estate under a life-only payout, and the fixed payment loses purchasing power to inflation unless an increasing payout option is selected, which lowers the starting payment.
It also does not address the three-quarters of participants who said they need to save more. For someone still ten or fifteen years from retirement, the accumulation question is the live one, and a deferred product or a straightforward increase in contribution rate is the relevant lever. Principal protection and guaranteed income are distribution tools, not accumulation shortcuts.
What the example does establish is the shape of the actual question. Retirement readiness has a numeric answer. It is the gap between the monthly income a household needs and the monthly income it has contractually secured, including Social Security and any pension. Everything else, including a 41% confidence reading, is commentary on that number.
The arithmetic is short. Add the monthly income already guaranteed for life: Social Security, any defined benefit pension, and any annuity income already in force. Subtract that total from the monthly spending the household actually requires, not the figure a rule of thumb suggests. The remainder is the gap that savings must cover, and it is the only number in this exercise that is not a forecast.
From there the question becomes how much of that remainder should be converted into guaranteed income and how much should stay liquid. That decision depends on health, other assets, legacy intentions, and tax position, which is why it belongs in a conversation with a licensed professional rather than in a calculator. Availability and terms vary by state.
Confidence is a feeling. Monthly income is a number. Compare current annuity rates and see what the arithmetic produces.
Compare Annuity Rates →This content is for educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, tax, or legal advice. Annuity products vary by carrier and state. Consult a licensed financial professional before making any financial decisions. AnnuitiesHQ.com does not sell annuities or provide investment advice.
