Retirement Roulette

Here's a precis of what the advisers said. You be the judge.

1. What Hank said. Hank, a financial planner, has a ""fee only'' practice--charging fees for his time in lieu of taking sales commissions. Temma found him by calling the International Association for Financial Planning in Atlanta, which sends out free biographical data on planners in your area. They talked for an hour and a half, at $125 an hour.

Hank concluded that Temma did indeed need the famous $1 million to retire at 65. He said that would take an additional $1,400 a year, on top of what she's saving now. But his calculation ignored her NEWSWEEK pension, the money NEWSWEEK adds to her 401(k) (a fat 110 percent of whatever she contributes) and her Social Security. Benefits like these are what most Americans retire on.

2. What Harold said. Harold, of Salomon Smith Barney, thought Temma should retire at 60 and at a higher standard of living than she has now. His projections counted Social Security, made a rough (inaccurate) entry for future 401(k) contributions and--voilà!--produced $1.5 million as her retirement ""need.''

Harold was hungrier than Hank. His computer told Temma she ought to save an extra $13,000 a year--in his firm's IRAs, of course, not in NEWSWEEK'S 401(k) plan. A second computerized proposal suggested she save three quarters of her annual pretax salary--proving that his computer has a sense of humor.

3. What John said. John, of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, advised Temma to treat her 401(k) as if it were ""gravy'' and figure her retirement without it. His computer put her savings target at $650,000 if she quit at 65--a sum attainable, he said, by investing an extra $1,300 a year. (John, by the way, was so hazy on 401(k)s that he couldn't describe them correctly. Temma let him off the hook.)