3 ms·
Plain and simple: It's a way to tear up ERISA oversight and pension guarantees and instead get fed to the wolves of wall street. Who doesn't know someone who's
by anjel 3y ago
Plain and simple: It's a way to tear up ERISA oversight and pension guarantees and instead get fed to the wolves of wall street. Who doesn't know someone who's 401k was wiped out just months before they were about to retire in 2001 or 2008? Why make rules where you can't change your portfolio settings more that twice a year and in very productive and limited ways in exchange for inescapable Management fees?
- briHass 3y agoSomeone on the brink of retirement would not be 100% stocks, ideally more like 60% at most. Both of those cases were about a 50% drop peak to trough, so the loss was around 30% on paper. In the '08 case, the market recovered in about 4-5 years. Holding firm and sticking to a 60/40 allocation would've meant very little realized losses prior to it bouncing back. For the '01 case, it's hard to find much sympathy for a stock heavy portfolio that took a 50% haircut, considering that grew 400% in the 10 years that preceded it.
- nradov 3y agoI don't know anyone whose 401(k) plan was wiped out just before retirement. Some of them experienced small losses. Management fees are generally very low unless you pick the worst mutual fund options.