Many U.S. retirees want a predictable income in retirement without giving up control of their savings or the ability to leave assets to their heirs, according to a 2026 study by Allspring Global Investments.

The report, The Retirement Decisions Defaults Can’t Address, found that 70% of respondents wanted both income protection and control over their retirement assets, highlighting the limits of standardised retirement plans.

The study, conducted by the Retirement Research Center at the Defined Contribution Institutional Investment Association (DCIIA) on behalf of Allspring, surveyed 1,510 U.S. adults between June 25 and July 6, 2026. Participants were household financial decision-makers with at least $200,000 in investable assets.

The sample included 752 people approaching retirement, with an average age of 62, and 758 retirees, whose average age was 71.

Allspring said the findings point to a need for retirement plans that combine automatic features for routine decisions with more personalised guidance for choices involving withdrawals, taxes, income and the transfer of wealth.

Retirement savings decisions remain complex

The study found that 70% of respondents trusted their employers either a lot or somewhat in designing workplace retirement plans. However, 56% of those approaching retirement expected to move their workplace savings elsewhere when they retired.

Lower costs, investment options designed for retirement and flexible withdrawal arrangements were among the factors that could encourage participants to keep their savings in employer-sponsored plans, the report said.

Industry data cited by Allspring showed that, in 2026, defined contribution plan rollovers to individual retirement accounts exceeded transfers into workplace plans by about nine to one.

The findings suggest that confidence in an employer does not necessarily translate into a decision to keep retirement assets in its plan.

For employers and retirement plan providers, the report said, plan design should reflect whether the primary objective is to help workers accumulate savings, support them through retirement or coordinate their finances around broader outcomes such as income, inflation and taxes.

Retirees weigh guaranteed income against flexibility

Retirement income products also presented a trade-off between predictable payments and retaining access to savings.

Nearly one-third of people approaching retirement said they wanted guaranteed retirement income and would consider an annuity, a financial product that can provide payments over a specified period or for life.

However, interest varied according to the amount of savings available and whether remaining assets could be passed to heirs.

When respondents were asked to consider having $250,000 in total savings, 4% said they were very likely to purchase a $200,000 annuity. When the hypothetical savings amount increased to $500,000, the share rose to 13%.

At the $500,000 savings level, 66% expressed interest in an annuity concept that would allow any remaining balance to pass to heirs, compared with 34% who were interested in an annuity regardless of whether a balance could be inherited.

The results indicate that retirement income decisions involve more than the size of regular payments. Access to capital, ownership and inheritance can also influence how people assess financial products.

U.S. retail annuity sales reached a record $464 billion in 2025, up 7% from the previous year, according to figures from LIMRA cited in the report. The figures cover the U.S. market and do not represent global annuity sales.

Target-date funds lose ground after retirement

The study also examined the use of target-date funds, which typically adjust their investment allocations as investors approach a specified retirement year.

Although these funds can simplify portfolio management, their use was lower among retirees than among people nearing retirement.

About 55% of near-retirees held some of their retirement assets in target-date funds, compared with 17% of retirees, the report found.

Industry figures cited by Allspring showed that target-date funds accounted for 35% of U.S. 401(k) assets at the end of 2023, compared with 2% of individual retirement account assets in mid-2024.

The report attributed the difference to several possible factors, including investors’ desire for greater control, their use of financial advisers and concerns about investment performance.

It also noted that retirement introduces decisions that target-date funds do not necessarily resolve, including how much money to withdraw, how to manage taxes and where to hold assets after leaving an employer’s plan.

Allspring said such funds could remain useful for managing portfolio allocation while retirees receive additional support for decisions about income and access to savings.

Different households define retirement success differently

The research grouped respondents into three broad profiles based on their financial priorities: safety and predictability, real returns, and tax efficiency.

The safety-focused group accounted for 45% of respondents, while 35% prioritised real returns. The remaining 20% were classified as primarily concerned with tax efficiency.

The report found that 25% of respondents in the safety-focused group wanted complete security when investing their retirement savings.

Among those prioritising real returns, 54% were highly confident that equities could generate sufficient returns for retirement. In the tax-efficiency group, 92% said they would take a particular action if the resulting tax savings were large enough.

Median household investable assets were $625,000 for both the safety-focused and real-return groups, compared with $875,000 for the tax-efficiency group.

Allspring said these differences show why household savings and income alone may not fully explain retirement decisions. People with similar resources can have different views on investment risk, access to money and the importance of leaving an inheritance.

Guidance may matter most for irreversible decisions

The report recommended using automatic features for routine, relatively easy-to-reverse decisions, such as enrolment and increases in savings contributions, while providing more individual guidance for decisions with lasting consequences.

These include choosing when to retire, selecting a retirement income arrangement, moving assets out of a workplace plan and making withdrawal decisions.

The findings are relevant to U.S. employers and financial advisers designing retirement benefits, but the survey’s sample limits how far the results can be generalised to other populations.

All respondents were U.S. residents who made household financial decisions and had at least $200,000 in investable assets. The results therefore do not necessarily reflect the experiences of lower-asset households or workers in countries with different pension systems.

Allspring said retirement plans should account for participants’ priorities alongside traditional measures such as savings balances, with the aim of providing support that reflects their circumstances as they move from employment into retirement.