It’s clear that 401(k) plans have been huge successes in the 40 years since they were authorized, amassing more than $5 trillion in assets and becoming investment mainstays for millions of Americans through workplace-benefit programs.

But 401(k) plans and similar defined-contribution programs haven’t worked out well for everyone, and criticisms linger. As the 401(k) concept marks the 40th birthday from its creation in the Revenue Act of 1978, here’s a look at some of the shortcomings:

These programs aren’t pensions
Perhaps the biggest complaint about 401(k) plans is that they aren’t traditional pensions, where employers hire professional managers to run the show and ensure payouts for retired workers.

Still, 401(k) plans have supplanted traditional pensions, as companies find them cheaper to run, with less risk in terms of guaranteeing results.

With 401(k)-style programs, workers themselves are responsible for making decisions that will affect their investment success. For astute investors, that’s not bad. Many of these people value 401(k) plans for the control and flexibility they provide, allowing each person to decide how much to put away and which investments to select.

Also, 401(k) accounts are portable, meaning you can take your funds with you when switching jobs.

The 401(k) recipe has worked well for many. Fidelity Investments recently reported that 187,000 people with 401(k)s managed by the firm had portfolios of at least $1 million as of the third quarter, a 41-percent rise from a year earlier (though representing just 1 percent of all accounts). The average balance overall hit a record $106,500.

But not everyone is up to the investment challenge, and not all plans are attractive.

Millions of workers would be better off with pensions if their employers offered them. But that prospect isn’t likely, so 401(k) critics who pine for the return of traditional pensions, especially at the small firms that never offered them, aren’t being realistic.

Read more @Azcentral