Most married couples would never think of retirement as a solo project. Yet when it comes to workplace retirement plans, many households still save as though each spouse is operating independently.
That can be costly.
A recent study highlighted by the Center for Retirement Research found that nearly one in five married couples left employer matching contributions on the table, even though they were already saving enough as a household to capture more of the available match. Among those couples, the average amount forgone was approximately $757 per year.
The issue is not necessarily that couples are saving too little. It is that they may not be directing those savings efficiently.
Suppose one spouse receives a dollar-for-dollar employer match, while the other receives only 50 cents for every dollar contributed. If the household is putting additional money into the less generous plan before fully capturing the stronger match, it may be missing out on compensation that was already available.
The research suggests this problem may be more widespread than the visible losses alone indicate. The authors estimate that approximately 58% of couples may not be actively coordinating their retirement contributions, even if some happen to avoid losing a match because both spouses are already contributing enough to their respective plans.
Why does this happen?
In many cases, couples simply have not considered the question. Retirement plans are administered individually, contribution elections are made separately, and employers typically communicate with the employee rather than the household.
But the study also found that some couples deliberately avoid coordinating because each spouse views their retirement account as “theirs.” Concerns about independence, fairness, or what might happen in a divorce can make one spouse reluctant to direct more savings toward the other spouse’s account.
Those concerns are understandable, but they may not align with how retirement assets are generally treated. Retirement savings accumulated during a marriage are typically considered part of the marital estate, regardless of which spouse’s name appears on the account. The exact rules can vary, but maintaining separate contribution patterns does not necessarily provide the protection couples may assume it does.
That does not mean every couple should automatically prioritize the plan with the highest match. Vesting schedules, plan expenses, investment choices, tax treatment, employment stability, and cash-flow needs all matter.
Coordination should extend beyond contribution rates. Each spouse may hold a well-diversified retirement fund, yet the combined household portfolio can still carry more—or less—risk than intended. Reviewing both plans together can reveal overlapping holdings, conflicting target-date strategies, unnecessary costs, or opportunities to use the strongest investment options available in each plan.
A thoughtful retirement review should look at both spouses’ plans together: their contribution rates, matching formulas, tax options, and broader financial goals. Sometimes strengthening a retirement strategy does not require saving more. It simply requires coordinating the savings already being made.