Breaking News Emails Get breaking news alerts and special reports. The news and stories that matter, delivered weekday mornings. 
 
 / Source: NBC News By John W. Schoen, CNBC 
 
 It's the biggest financial worry for anyone saving for retirement: will I outlive my savings and die broke? 
 
 Based on surveys repeatedly pointing to dismally low levels of retirement savings, most American households have reason to be concerned. The latest report on how many Americans die broke comes from an analysis by the Employee Benefits Research Institute based on data from the University of Michigan's Health and Retirement Study. 
 
 Of those 85 or older who died between 2010 and 2012, roughly one in five had no assets other than a house, according to the analysis. The average home equity was about $140,000. Roughly one in eight of those households had no assets at all. 
 
 Those who died single at 85 or older fared worse, roughly a quarter had only some equity in a house — about $83,000 on average. One in six had nothing, and one in 10 died with an average debt of about $6,000. 
 
 For those who died at a younger age, the numbers were even worse. Some 30 percent of households losing a family member between ages 50 and 64 had no assets left. Those households also had lower incomes than older retirees. 
 
 "A lot of folks really don't have much of a financial cushion by the time they get to the end." 
 
 Old and Poor 
 
 For many retirees, the end of life comes with major medical costs that can wipe out savings. But others have little savings to begin with. 
 
 "A lot of folks really don't have much of a financial cushion by the time they get to the end," said MIT economist James Poterba, whose 2012 study found that many Americans die with "virtually no financial assets." 
 
 Poterba's study found that 46 percent of American's had less than $10,000 in financial assets in the last year of their life. 
 
 "Many more people who have very low financial assets at the end of life have been bumping along with low assets through most of their retirement," he said. "They just hadn't saved very much." 
 
 A number of studies have detailed how little retirees have saved. 
 
 Last fall, a Harris poll conducted for Wells Fargo found that a third of respondents between ages 25 and 75 — with a household median income of $63,000 — weren't contributing anything a 401(k), an IRA or other retirement savings account. Half of those over age 50 said they won't even have enough money to "survive" on in retirement. 
 
 And for those nearing retirement, the median savings was just $14,500, according to a study last month by the National Institute of Retirement Security. 
 
 "So it's not surprising that there a lot of people who get to 75 or 85 and have nothing left," said Diane Oakley, the institute's executive director. "They didn't have much to begin with." 
 
 Struggling to Save 
 
 While living longer requires a larger nest egg at retirement, the Employee Benefits Research Institute analysis found that older households fared better financially at the end of life. 
 
 "Households which lost family members at relatively younger ages were also the households with lower asset holdings and lower income," said Sudipto Banerjee, author of the study. "Singles who died relatively early were in much worse financial condition than couples." 
 
 People who died earlier also had significantly lower household income than households with all surviving members. 
 
 More from CNBC: 
 
 Poterba suggested there may be two reasons people who died older seemed better off financially. One is that healthier people may be able to earn more in their lifetime than those with life-long health issues that may shorten their life span. Conversely, people with greater wealth have better access to health care that may help them live longer. 
 
 Older workers may fare better because many of them are from a generation that was more likely to be covered by a defined benefit pension, which helped them pay the bills without tapping into savings, said Oakley. 
 
 That's not going to be true for coming generations, who are about half as likely to have access to a defined benefit plan at work, she said. 
 
 As more households rely on building their own nest egg, they'll need to put away more savings. But it remains to be seen whether younger workers will be able to do so — especially if interest rates stay low for an extended period, said Poterba. 
 
 "It's very easy for people not to realize how expensive it is to provide a steady income stream and how much you need to build up," he said. "As a matter of arithmetic, if we're in a very long period of lower rates of return, it's going to be challenging for younger households to build up a nest egg by the time they reach 65 because they don't get the compounding that you get at higher rates of return." ||||| While many Americans spend their through assets in old age, a surprising number have more savings two decades after retiring than they do when they leave their jobs. The phenomenon is yet another chapter in the story of old age in the U.S.—which might be titled A Tale Of Two Retirements. 
 
 A new study by Sudipto Banerjee of the Employee Benefit Research Institute paints the picture: Over the first 18 years of retirement, about one-third of seniors in two large national studies increased their assets. This was true even among those who began with relatively little wealth. Typical older adults who had less than $500,000 in financial assets at retirement spent about one-quarter of their nest eggs within the first two decades after getting the proverbial gold watch—a significant amount but less than many retirement models predict. 
 
 Hanging on to assets 
 
 Not surprisingly, Banerjee found that those who retired with non-housing assets in excess of $500,000 were more likely to increase their wealth in old age. And he found that those with old-style defined benefit pensions spent less of their wealth than those without them. 
 
 But a surprising number of seniors—even those with limited financial resources—held on to their financial assets, at least for the first couple of decades after retirement. They apparently did it by reducing their spending to match their income so they did not have to dip into savings. 
 
 Banerjee defined non-housing assets as stocks, bonds, mutual funds, savings accounts, CDs, housing except for a primary residence, and the value of automobiles. Wealth was net of debt. He excluded 401(k)s. Then, he divided retirees into three groups: Those with less than $200,000 just before retirement, those with $200,000-$500,000, and those with more than $500,000. 
 
 The surprising story 
 
 Median assets for the lowest income group dropped from about $32,000 at retirement to $24,000 after 18 years. That’s a decline of about one-quarter. But here is where the story gets really interesting: About one in five in this group had only 20%of their assets remaining after just four years of retirement. No surprise there. But 35% had more savings after 18 years than when they started. 
 
 For those with a moderate amount of wealth, median assets fell from about $302,000 to $243,000 after 18 years—a decline of about 27%. But here again the average is misleading. About 16% had only 20% of their assets left after two decades, while 37% had more than when they retired. 
 
 The very old and the very sick 
 
 The highest asset group started with an average of about $857,000 and still had about $756,000 after two decades. Among this group, about 12 percent was left with only 20% of their assets after 18 years, while 35% saw their nest eggs grow after two decades. 
 
 Other research confirms Banerjee’s basic story. But a closer look at spending patterns in old age helps explain why some seniors in all wealth groups increase assets in old age while others spend all their savings and become impoverished: the need for high levels of medical and long-term care. 
 
 In a separate paper, Banerjee looks at the wide variation of health care costs (including nursing home expenses) for those aged 70 and older. The average out-of-pocket cost of care from age 70 to death is about $27,000. But the cost for the top 10% is $172,000 and the top 5% is $269,000. 
 
 In this study, Banerjee is looking at a slightly different population (age 70 to death instead of the first two decades after retirement) and costs for the very old are higher than even those in their early 80s. But the basic message remains: While average out-of-pocket health care costs are manageable for even middle- income seniors, the relatively few with high medical costs easily can be ruined by the expense. 
 
 A 2015 paper by Jim Poterba, Steven Venti, and David Wise for the National Bureau of Economic Research also looked at the changes in financial assets of those aged 70 and older. They found savings were typically very stable: Those who were poor before they retired tended to die poor. Those with substantial assets at age 70 died with significant amounts of wealth. 
 
 A more complex story 
 
 But there were two exceptions: Those who lived to a very old age (90 or older) spent more of their resources in their last years. And those who either divorced or suffered adverse health events, such as strokes, were more likely to run out of money. 
 
 It is common for progressives to focus on those older adults who outlive their assets, while many conservatives point to data that show average savings and costs in old age and conclude there is no “retirement savings crisis.” This important research tells a more complicated story: While a surprising number of seniors hold on to their assets in the first years after retirement, some—especially those who have few assets to begin with, live a long time in old age, or who suffer from serious illness—will indeed become impoverished.
– Need a push to start saving? You've got it, courtesy of the Employee Benefits Research Institute. A review of retirement surveys from 2010 to 2012 finds one in eight people who died at 85 or older were dead broke, with no assets to their name, reports NBC News. One in five had only a house as an asset, with average home equity of $140,000. Single? The news gets worse. One in six who died at 85 or older without a spouse were penniless. Some 10% were actually in debt, while 25% had $83,000 on average in home equity. But not all have the benefit of living to old age. About 30% of households that lost a family member between 50 and 64 left no financial assets and earned less income than older retirees. "A lot of folks really don't have much of a financial cushion by the time they get to the end," says an economist, who previously found 46% of Americans die with less than $10,000 in assets. His findings suggest those who live longer die richer, perhaps because they didn't battle expensive, life-long health issues and therefore had money to spend on better health care. A shred of good news: Retirement account balances have hit record highs, according to an analysis from Fidelity Investments, per Time. The company says the average individual retirement account balance hit a record high of $94,100 in Q1 and the average Fidelity 401(k) balance is up 3.6% from 2014, though other reports are more discouraging.