Portfolio Construction

Defined Contribution

<p>Monthly withdrawals from investment account, moderate income (5% of savings annually), high 20-year sustainability, full access to savings, income is increased annually for inflation.</p>


<p>Monthly withdrawals from investment account, low income (3.8% of savings annually), strong longevity, long-term growth focus, full access to savings, income is increased annually for inflation.</p>


<p>Monthly withdrawals from investment account, moderate income (5% of savings annually), moderate 30-year sustainability, full access to savings, income is increased annually for inflation.</p>


These top preferences were consistently chosen across all ages of respondents.

<h3>What Do Participants Truly Value When Faced With Real World Trade-offs When Saving for Retirement?</h3>
<p>This report is grounded in a survey of approximately 5,000 individuals and 250 plan sponsors conducted by Goldman Sachs Asset Management and seeks to indirectly determine retirement income preferences based on choices between retirement income strategies.<sup style="font-weight: normal;">1</sup><span style="font-weight: normal;"> By forcing respondents to navigate real-world trade-offs, such as access to savings, longevity, and inflation protection, the analysis seeks to decode what stakeholders actually value.</span></p>
<h2>Methodology</h2>
<p>In order to better understand the factors shaping retirement income decisions, we conducted a paired-comparison study evaluating 12 distinct retirement income strategies. Our analysis is drawn from data collected from our annual survey, which includes responses from approximately 5,000 individuals—comprising both&nbsp;working respondents&nbsp;and recent retirees. Details about our methodology can be found in Appendix I.</p>
<h2>Working &amp; Retired Respondents Income Choices Revealed</h2>
<p>After analyzing the responses based on the strategies selected, the paired comparison revealed that retirement savers prefer systematic withdrawals that consistently increase with inflation, provide moderate levels of income, and are designed to offer high levels of sustainability. &nbsp;While we generally focus on the perspective of those nearest retirement, responses across various demographics showed striking consistency across preferred options.&nbsp;</p>


<h2>Deriving Top Retirement Income Preference</h2>
<h3>Top Desired Features Influencing Decisions</h3>
<h4><b>Longevity and Low Depletion Risk</b></h4>
<p>The top three participant choices selected were focused on longevity and control rather than maximum income. This is consistent with the popularity of guaranteed lifetime income we see in some surveys, however the preference for significant longevity doesn’t always require the life guarantee when evaluated as part of a retirement income strategy. For some, it could mean guaranteed income; but for many, it might be met in other ways.</p>
<p><b><i>Our Takeaway</i></b><i>: Longevity (lower chance of running out of money &amp; longer lasting savings) appears to be one of the highest-ranked decision drivers for participants, because options with lower depletion risk rose to the top even when they would deliver less income than “high income” alternatives.</i></p>
<h4><b>Flexibility and Access to Savings (Liquidity)</b></h4>
<p>The top selected option also highlighted full access to savings. Many of the highest ranked options would explicitly provide full access to savings throughout retirement. When access was reduced or eliminated, these respective options declined in rank and sat mid-pack among the full list of options.</p>
<p><b><i>Our Takeaway:</i></b><i> Access is a highly important feature for participants, helping to explain why fully illiquid annuitization ranked materially below solutions that would maintain access even when sustainability is a key attribute.</i></p>
<h4><b>Consistent Income vs. Market-based Variable Income</b></h4>
<p>Several of the retirement income strategies were based on dynamic distribution strategies where the income generated each year&nbsp;would be&nbsp;based on a percentage of the account balance and therefore reflecting any market volatility, as opposed to providing a consistent dollar amount of income each year increased with inflation.&nbsp; These strategies ranked at the bottom of the list showing a clear preference for income&nbsp;stability and consistency.</p>
<p><b><i>Our Takeaway:</i></b><i> Income consistency is among the most important factors for participants, because the strategies whose defining characteristic is variability cluster at the bottom of the ranked choices.&nbsp; This is consistent with survey responses where participants state they want stable and consistent income.</i></p>
<h3>Important Features, but Not Decision Drivers</h3>
<h4><b>Level of Income</b></h4>
<p>The different levels of income depicted across each of the strategies help us gauge interest in maximizing income potential. Respondents did not simply pick&nbsp;the highest income offering.&nbsp; In fact, among the top three strategies selected were moderate- and lower-income options, suggesting the willingness to trade income for stability.</p>
<p><b><i>Our Takeaway:</i></b><i> “Income level” matters, but it appears subordinate to longevity and stability for participants.&nbsp;</i></p>
<h4><b>Inflation Protection</b></h4>
<p>The highest preferred investment withdrawal strategies include annual income increases tied to inflation, though they lack explicit inflation hedges. Lower-ranked options offer no inflation protection. &nbsp;However, these products also vary in income stability and guarantees, so inflation protection is not the only factor for their ranking.</p>
<p><b><i>Our Takeaway:</i></b><i> Inflation protection likely contributes positively to preference, but the data here indicates it is probably not the single decisive feature on its own.</i></p>
<h4><b>Guaranteed Income vs. Non-guaranteed Income</b></h4>
<p>Guaranteed income from pensions or annuities is often seen as essential for retirement, but&nbsp;respondents&nbsp;ranked partial annuity options only moderately. Conditional guaranteed income with higher fees also ranked lower.&nbsp; While guaranteed income features can effectively and efficiently support the sustainability of a retirement income strategy, they ultimately&nbsp;ranked&nbsp;middle of the pack in respondent preference.</p>
<p><b><i>Our Takeaway:</i></b><i> Income guarantees can support sustainability but any that limits access to savings is a significant drawback. Savers prefer flexibility over guarantees with restrictions.</i></p>
<h2>A Balanced Approach</h2>
<p>Overall, the findings of this study underscore that a successful retirement income solution cannot be a one-size-fits-all approach, should it be assumed to involve<b> </b>guarantees alone. To truly meet the needs of a diverse retiree population, strategies should consider&nbsp;four important elements: income level, explicit inflation protection, ongoing access to savings, and probability of sustaining longevity.</p>
<p>On one hand, while lifetime income guarantees are sometimes viewed as providing retirement income peace of mind, the data suggests that participants value the peace of mind provided by flexibility and control. Ultimately, bridging the gap between what participants say they want and what they actually choose requires a more nuanced, multi-dimensional approach to match retirement income strategies to individual needs.</p>
<p>If you would like to read more of our Decoding Retirment Income series, please see <a href="/content/gs/gsam-app/us/en/institutions/insights/article/2026/decoding-retirement-income-plan-sponsor-preference-gap">The Plan Sponsor Preference Gap</a> and <a href="/content/gs/gsam-app/us/en/institutions/insights/article/2026/decoding-retirement-income-plan-design-considerations">Plan Design Considerations</a>.</p>
<p>&nbsp;</p>
<p><span class="disclosure-text"><sup>1</sup>&nbsp;The data represents information from the survey that was conducted by Goldman Sachs Asset Management and Qualtrics Experience Management between June 27, 2025–July 21, 2025. Views expressed are those of survey respondents.&nbsp;</span></p>


People value longevity and peace of mind. In forced trade-offs, respondents consistently favored moderate income levels with a high probability of lasting throughout retirement, rather than higher income with greater depletion risk.  

Sustainable Income is Preferred Over Maximizing Income

Across both retired and working individuals, “guaranteed income for life” ranked as the top single-feature preference when respondents were asked directly what type of retirement income strategy best aligns with their needs.  However, when forced to make a choice, a flexible retirement income solution was more highly ranked.

Guaranteed Lifetime Income is Appealing but Not Sufficient on its Own

Inflation was the top unexpected challenge in retirement spending, reported by 57% of retirees - more than healthcare and housing. Protecting against inflation is critical to consider when evaluating the effectiveness of any income strategy.

Inflation Protection is a Key Factor of Perceived Retirement Security

When evaluating complete retirement income scenarios, respondents repeatedly favored strategies that maintained full or flexible access to savings, even when those strategies offered moderate or low-income levels.

Access to Savings Matters More Than Income Level

The paired comparison results showed that working (across all age groups) and retired respondents ranked retirement income scenarios very similarly, with the same top two choices across cohorts and ages.

Working and Retired Individuals Have Strikingly Similar Preferences

When forced to make trade-offs, retirement savers favor flexibility, sustainability, and inflation protection over maximizing income.

Decoding Retirement Income: The Retirement Saver Preference Gap

As defined contribution plans evolve to prioritize retirement income outcomes, plan sponsors face a multifaceted challenge: balancing longevity risk and inflation against the complex realities of participant behavior. While a majority of workers and retirees explicitly state a desire for "guaranteed income for life," actual adoption of these products remains low when offered in-plan.

EXPLORE

ABOUT US

OUR BUSINESSES

CONNECT

Learn how we can help investors meet a variety of needs.

Find a Solution

View our customized solutions for different investing needs.

By Solution

Incorporating Sustainability

Alternatives

Explore our customized solutions by client type.

By Client Type

Corporate Pension

Insurance

Public Pension

Discover the breadth of our integrated investing platform.

What We Do

Our integrated offering across equity, fixed income, and multi-asset solutions.

Public Investing

Fixed Income

Money Markets

Equities

Multi-Asset Solutions

Active ETFs

ETFs

Discover how we turn global transformations into investing opportunity by combining specialized global Alternatives expertise with the power of Goldman Sachs' network and insight.

Alternative Investing

Private Equity

Private Credit

Hedge Funds and Liquid Alternatives

Secondaries

Real Estate

Infrastructure

Sustainability

GP Stakes

Growth Equity

Life Sciences

Co-Investments

Learn about our public and alternative investing capabilities

Capabilities

External Investing

OCIO and Fiduciary Management

Liquidity Solutions

Explore our full range of mutual and exchange-traded funds.

Funds

Document Library

Discover our view on the economy, market and investment strategy in our latest insight articles.

Insights

Macroeconomics

All Insights

Spotlight

Our approach to sustainability focuses on two secular trends that are transforming the global economy: the climate transition and fostering inclusive growth.

Creating Impact

Stewardship

Policies

Reports

Bringing together traditional and alternative investments, Goldman Sachs Asset Management provides clients around the world with a dedicated partnership and focus on long-term performance.