Net Worth Tracking to Retirement: Turn One Number Into an On-track Score

According to the Social Security Administration, the average retired worker benefit was about $1,975 per month at the end of 2024. For many households, that covers only part of the expected expenses. Meanwhile, the latest Trustees Report projects the main Social Security fund will be depleted in 2033, after which benefits would be partially payable without reform (SSA, 2025). Those two facts explain a quiet anxiety: “Is our current net worth actually on track?” This article explains a practical way to convert today’s balance sheet into a single, on-track score - grounded in mainstream assumptions, transparent math, and sensible updates. 

Key Takeaways

1. An on-track score compares assets available for retirement to the capital required to fund the gap between desired spending and guaranteed income.
2. Rule-of-thumb guardrails help sanity-check the score: many providers cite 70–85% income replacement targets and age-based savings multiples such as 10× income by late 60s - both are approximations, not prescriptions. 
3. The score should exclude non-spendable equity (e.g., emergency fund minimums) and include real-world frictions like taxes and debt service.
4. Markets whipsaw scores. In 2022, both stocks and bonds fell, a rare hit to “balanced” portfolios - so people should expect volatility in any single-number metric.

What an “on-track score” actually measures

An on-track score is a simple ratio:

On-track score = Assets available for retirement ÷ Required capital to cover the spending gap

• Assets available generally means investable accounts plus the share of home equity one would realistically convert, less short-term reserves and planned big-ticket spending.
  Spending gap is the annual budget target in retirement minus predictable income, such as Social Security and any pensions.
• Required capital is the present value of that gap over an expected retirement horizon (life expectancy at retirement is often ~19 years for the average 65-year-old, per CDC 2022 data), using a reasonable real-return or annuity-style discount. The math is straightforward; the inputs require judgment. 

Why it matters: the ratio condenses a complex plan into one number people can track monthly - useful for communicating within a household and for spotting drift early. So what? A clear signal reduces procrastination and encourages consistent saving behavior.

Guardrails: turning rules of thumb into sense checks

Rules of thumb are not plans, but they provide quick anchors.

• Income replacement: Large providers often frame retirement spending at 70–85% of late-career income, depending on taxes, housing, and work-related costs. Vanguard’s planning research commonly uses ~79% as a modeling assumption. 
• Savings multiples: Fidelity’s public guidance suggests 1× income by 30, 3x by 40, 6x by 50, 8x by 60, and ~10x by 67. These were built for broad audiences and can help validate whether an on-track score looks directionally right. 
• Social Security reality check: At today’s averages, Social Security may cover a meaningful slice but rarely the whole budget; the program’s long-term shortfall also argues for prudence.

Hypothetical: A 45-year-old earning $150,000 targets 75% replacement (~$112,500). If estimated Social Security covers $36,000 at full retirement age, the annual gap is ~$76,500. Depending on horizon and discounting, the required capital might land near the high-six to low-seven figures. If current “assets available” are $600,000, the on-track score could be, say, 0.6–0.8 - useful feedback to calibrate savings and expectations. (Numbers for illustration; individual inputs vary.)

Where scores go wrong - and how to fix them

1) Market noise masquerading as progress. In 2022, both stocks and bonds sold off; even classic 60/40 mixes suffered their worst modern drawdown because rising rates hit bonds while equities fell. A single downturn can make a score dip, even if long-term saving is on schedule. Building on that idea, a household may prefer a banded view: show the score as a range using conservative and base-case assumptions. 

2) Overcounting illiquid assets. Home equity above what a person would realistically tap, concentrated private stock with selling restrictions, or business equity that funds ongoing living expenses during working years - these can inflate confidence if treated as fully spendable on day one. A clean approach is to haircut such assets or model staged liquidity.

3) Ignoring longevity math. The average 65-year-old may plan for ~19 years, but many live longer; couples often need to plan for one partner surpassing the average. Considering a longer tail nudges the required capital up modestly and reduces the risk of running short late in life. 

4) Treating rules as guarantees. Savings multiples and replacement rates are orientation tools; taxes, housing, healthcare inflation, and work choices in “semi-retirement” can shift the target meaningfully. The remedy is to refresh assumptions annually and after life events.

A cleaner way to talk about the number - together

Money decisions are social decisions. A shared on-track score helps partners align on trade-offs: working a bit longer, trimming optional housing upgrades, or reconsidering when to claim benefits. It also reduces unproductive debates about line-items and focuses attention on the outcome that matters: “Are we close to fully funding the gap?”

Want an easy way to turn your balance sheet into a living on-track score? Try free analysis tools like PortfolioPilot.com. They organize net worth, model scenarios, and surface monthly, neutral insights - without taking custody of assets.