Women Lack Retirement Confidence: 1 in 4 Unsure

Context

A new survey published on March 21, 2026 finds that 1 in 4 women—25%—do not feel confident they will have enough money in retirement (Yahoo Finance, Mar 21, 2026). That metric has entered the public debate at a moment of heightened concern over longevity risk, rising living costs and volatility in both bond and equity markets. The confidence gap is not merely a subjective welfare indicator; it maps to measurable differentials in lifetime earnings, savings accumulation and exposure to defined-benefit versus defined-contribution plans. Institutional investors, retirement-plan sponsors and policymakers monitor these dynamics closely because they translate into demand patterns for fixed income, annuities and long-duration assets.

This article synthesizes available survey evidence and public data, quantifies where possible, and assesses the sectoral implications for retirement-product markets and sovereign fiscal exposure. We explicitly draw from the Yahoo Finance survey (Mar 21, 2026) while placing its headline number alongside labor-market and demographic context, including gender earnings differentials and longevity statistics. The following sections provide a data deep dive, examine market and policy implications, surface risks for asset managers and trustees, and conclude with a Fazen Capital Perspective that challenges conventional portfolio responses. Links to relevant Fazen Capital research are embedded for institutional readers seeking deeper modelling assumptions: Fazen Insights.

Data Deep Dive

The headline 25% figure (Yahoo Finance, Mar 21, 2026) requires disaggregation by age cohort, employment status and income band to be actionable. Surveys conducted over the last decade repeatedly show that confidence in retirement is highly correlated with age and access to employer-sponsored plans: younger women report lower confidence despite longer savings horizons, while near-retiree cohorts express concern about adequacy and healthcare costs. The 2026 survey echoes past patterns but suggests a modest deterioration in confidence among women aged 35–54 compared with similar surveys conducted in the early 2020s (survey comparators: Yahoo Finance, multiple 2022–2025 consumer surveys).

Two structural data points explain much of the variance. First, earnings differentials: women’s median wages remain below men’s, constraining retirement contributions. The Bureau of Labor Statistics reported that in 2022 women earned roughly 82.8% of men’s median weekly earnings (BLS, 2022), a gap that affects lifetime accumulation and employer-matching benefits tied to payroll. Second, longevity: women on average live several years longer than men, increasing the number of retirement years to fund; public health statistics show a multi-year female life-expectancy advantage (CDC; historical series 2010–2022). The combined effect of lower lifetime contributions and longer payout horizons magnifies perceived shortfalls.

A third empirical channel is pension coverage. Defined-benefit coverage has eroded over the past three decades, shifting longevity and market risk on to individual balance sheets. Retirement-account median balances vary dramatically by cohort and gender in government datasets; for example, among near-retirees median defined-contribution balances remain concentrated above the mean due to top-coded high savers, while the median female saver still trails her male counterpart in comparable age bands (Survey of Consumer Finances, historical series). These distributional features explain why a 25% confidence deficit can coexist with a minority of households holding substantial cushions: the problem is concentrated, not uniform.

Sector Implications

Asset managers: the confidence gap influences product demand. Lower confidence typically raises interest in guaranteed-income solutions—annuities and longevity hedges—yet supply has been constrained by low real yields and capital requirements. Institutional investors with long-duration liabilities see both opportunity and risk: demand for high-quality corporates and long Treasuries could rise if retirement-plan sponsors reallocate from equities to liability-driven investments, but margin compression in guaranteed products will persist unless yields normalize. For context, real yields on 10-year nominal Treasuries recovered modestly in late 2025 relative to 2023 lows, but remain historically depressed versus long-term averages (U.S. Treasury data, 2023–2025).

Plan sponsors and corporate balance sheets face a dual pressure: workforce demographics and retention. Employers offering retirement matching are under competitive pressure to design benefits that attract and retain female talent, particularly in mid-career bands where confidence is deteriorating. Public companies that expand automatic-enrollment opt-outs, enhanced matching or in-plan annuity options could see retention benefits that are quantifiable in personnel-cost models. Meanwhile, insurers and asset managers with scale in retirement products may profitably design target-date series and guaranteed buckets tailored to female longevity profiles.

Public policy and sovereign balance sheets are not immune. A sizable cohort of underfunded retirees increases potential demand for means-tested safety nets and could raise fiscal transfers if private savings fail to cover healthcare and long-term care costs. Pension adequacy shortfalls among women therefore bear directly on projected age-related public spending; stress scenarios in sovereign debt models should incorporate gender-segmented replacement rates rather than assuming homogeneous retirement readiness.

Risk Assessment

Market risks: portfolios tilted to growth assets expose retirees to sequence-of-returns risk if drawdowns occur in the pre-retirement window. Women, who on average have lower account balances, are disproportionately vulnerable to a negative return sequence because smaller portfolios recover less quickly in absolute dollar terms. Institutional risk frameworks must therefore model tail scenarios where a 20% equity drawdown in year -3 to retirement reduces median replacement rates by multiples of the initial shortfall.

Operational and behavioural risks: behavioural barriers—lower financial literacy, caregiving interruptions, and career breaks—contribute materially to lower contributions and suboptimal asset allocation. These are not easily addressed through macroeconomic policy but can be mitigated by plan design: automatic escalation, default annuitization options, and employer-side education have evidence-based impacts on participation and contribution rates. There is also counterparty risk to consider: insurers offering guarantees require robust capital and reinsurance solutions in a low-rate world; systemic stress could widen guarantor spreads, undermining product value.

Distributional and longevity-model risks: many retirement models understate longevity heterogeneity and the female advantage. Using a generic life table can underprice annuity solutions for women or misestimate public pension liabilities. Trustees and actuarial teams should apply cohort-specific mortality improvements and scenario-based longevity stress testing to avoid solvency misstatements. Failure to do so is both a governance and a regulatory risk.

Fazen Capital Perspective

Fazen Capital believes the 25% confidence headline should catalyse a differentiated product and policy response rather than a simple flight to liquid safe assets. Our modelling suggests that modest increases in targeted employer matching for mid-career women—e.g., a 1–2 percentage-point uplift in employer contributions for five years—could raise median replacement ratios by several percentage points for affected cohorts, materially reducing the cohort-level shortfall at a marginal cost to employers. We also see opportunity for liability-aware pooled solutions that blend partial guarantees with dynamic glidepaths to manage both longevity and sequence risk. Institutional allocators should evaluate partnerships between asset managers and insurers to deliver capital-efficient guarantees, taking advantage of scale to lower unit costs and improve pricing transparency (see detailed scenarios in our Fazen Insights research).

Contrary to the prevailing view that higher equity allocations universally close the confidence gap, our stress testing shows that increased equity exposure can exacerbate replacement-rate volatility for lower-balance cohorts. Instead, packaging layered solutions—liquidity buffers, growth sleeves and a deferred annuity or longevity swap—produces more stable retiree outcomes at comparable expected returns. This approach aligns with fiduciary duties by focusing on outcomes rather than headline returns, and it creates a market niche for managers who can integrate retirement-product engineering with institutional liability management.

Bottom Line

One in four women reporting insufficient retirement confidence signals concentrated but consequential shortfalls that affect product demand, sponsor liabilities and potential fiscal costs. Institutional actors should respond with cohort-specific modelling, targeted plan design, and outcome-oriented product innovation rather than blanket asset-allocation shifts.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute investment advice.