Most 401(k) savers may be short-changing themselves, data shows 70%

By Maurie Backman0%

6/9/2026, 5:44:02 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Optimism Bias, and Loss Aversion, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 34.2% saturation with 200 hits. Analysis detected 1,372 faulty-reasoning hits from 584 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 63.1% and a BS Rank of 70% (6,557 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 70.00% of the article peer group.

You might think that finding the money to contribute to your 401(k) is the hardest part of saving for retirement. 
But choosing the right investments can also be challenging. 
For this reason, many 401(k) savers take the easy way out and let their money land in a target date fund. 
A good 61% of 401(k) plan participants, in fact, had their money in a target date fund last year, according to Vanguard's preview of its latest How America Saves report. 
But while target date funds can be an effective solution for many savers, if you rely on one, you may end up sacrificing growth potential in your 401(k). 
That's something you might regret later. 
HOW ETFS CAN BE EFFECTIVE BUILDING BLOCKS FOR RETIREES 
Why a target date fund could let you down 
Target date funds are designed to be a one-size-fits-most solution. 
You select a fund based on your expected retirement year, and your assets are shifted automatically based on how close you are to that date. 
Target date funds certainly make saving for retirement easy. 
The problem, though, is that not all savers have the same goals, risk tolerance, or financial situation. 
ARE YOU A NEW STOCK MARKET INVESTOR IN JUNE 2026? 
HERE'S WARREN BUFFETT'S ADVICE 
It's common for target date funds to become conservative as retirement approaches. 
To be fair, that's what they're supposed to do. 
But when those funds get too conservative, they can limit growth potential. 
That could become a problem if it leaves your 401(k) plan underfunded. 
Target date funds also don't account for investments you might have outside of your 401(k). 
If you have conservative assets elsewhere, you could risk a retirement savings shortfall on a whole. 
TAP INTO THE HUMANOID ROBOTICS BOOM WITH THIS ETF 
Target date funds are notorious for charging higher fees. 
Those fees could erode your returns and leave you with a 401(k) balance you're less than pleased with. 
Alternative 401(k) investments to consider 
If you're willing to take a more hands-on approach to your 401(k), you may find that you're able to score higher returns and reduce your fees at the same time. 
Many 401(k) plans provide access to low-cost index funds that track major benchmarks such as the S&P 500. 
Leaning on these funds could help your money grow at a stronger pace without having to pay for active fund management. 
You can also mix and match funds in your 401(k) to get exposure to different corners of the market. 
For example, if you're on the younger side and have a greater tolerance for risk, you may want to choose funds that invest in international stocks or small-cap companies. 
This doesn't mean that target date funds are a bad choice for savers universally. 
They tend to do a great job of promoting portfolio diversification. 
GET FOX BUSINESS ON THE GO BY CLICKING HERE 
Rather, it's that if you don't look outside of a target date fund, you may end up with sluggish returns that limit your spending power in retirement. 
Taking the time to review your 401(k)'s investment choices could push you to choose more optimal investments that help you meet your retirement goals. 
The $23,760 Social Security bonus most retirees completely overlook 
If you're like most Americans, you're a few years (or more) behind on your retirement savings. 
But a handful of little-known "Social Security secrets" could help ensure a boost in your retirement income. 
The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 3.4%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 7.5%Maurie Backman: 3.0%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Availability Heuristic7.5%This article: 8.7%Maurie Backman: 2.2%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic8.7%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.3%FoxBusiness: 0.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 3.4%Maurie Backman: 3.4%FoxBusiness: 3.7%Overconfidence Bias3.4%This article: 5.1%Maurie Backman: 8.0%FoxBusiness: 12.9%Framing Effect5.1%This article: 18.3%Maurie Backman: 17.6%FoxBusiness: 1.5%Loss Aversion18.3%This article: 3.6%Maurie Backman: 1.8%FoxBusiness: 1.1%Status Quo Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 19.2%Maurie Backman: 8.9%FoxBusiness: 8.8%Optimism Bias19.2%This article: 6.7%Maurie Backman: 4.3%FoxBusiness: 2.0%Pessimism Bias6.7%This article: 29.5%Maurie Backman: 10.7%FoxBusiness: 7.9%Negativity Bias29.5%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 4.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 5.5%Maurie Backman: 1.4%FoxBusiness: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error5.5%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.6%Maurie Backman: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 3.8%Halo Effect2.6%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.1%Maurie Backman: 0.5%FoxBusiness: 2.3%Recency Bias2.1%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 7.0%Maurie Backman: 2.9%FoxBusiness: 7.2%Appeal to Authority7.0%This article: 10.3%Maurie Backman: 4.9%FoxBusiness: 1.6%False Dilemma10.3%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 12.5%Maurie Backman: 9.1%FoxBusiness: 6.3%Hasty Generalization12.5%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.8%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.8%Maurie Backman: 2.1%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Bandwagon5.8%This article: 10.1%Maurie Backman: 4.7%FoxBusiness: 6.1%Appeal to Emotion10.1%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.2%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.1%Maurie Backman: 1.3%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.1%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 2.4%Maurie Backman: 0.6%FoxBusiness: 0.1%No True Scotsman2.4%This article: 34.2%Maurie Backman: 9.3%FoxBusiness: 1.9%Ambiguity (Equivocation)34.2%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 2.9%Maurie Backman: 0.7%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Middle Ground2.9%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.5%Maurie Backman: 0.4%FoxBusiness: 0.3%Special Pleading1.5%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 1.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 3.3%Maurie Backman: 0.8%FoxBusiness: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection3.3%This article: 13.9%Maurie Backman: 5.9%FoxBusiness: 4.1%Biased Writer Voice13.9%This article: 2.2%Maurie Backman: 4.8%FoxBusiness: 1.7%Indoctrination2.2%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Maurie Backman: 0.0%FoxBusiness: 2.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Maurie Backman: 9.3%FoxBusiness: 4.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…11.5%

584 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers7.0%attributed speech543writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageVanguard • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWarren Buffett • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageMotley Fool • 7 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Warren Buffett

100%flagged-word coverage
4 attributed words9.8% of attributed speech89% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Indoctrination+98.3 ptsWriter: 1.7%Warren Buffett: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-14.9 ptsWriter: 14.9%Warren Buffett: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -12.3 ptsWriter: 12.3%Warren Buffett: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-3.5 ptsWriter: 3.5%Warren Buffett: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.