Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Who the hell pays a 2% fee on a 401k? And if you pay too much in fees, why wouldn't you move your funds to someone with a better fee structure?
Anyone who doesn't beat the market net of fees for an investing firm would be fired quicker than you can blink. I have seen it many times.
And how many people actually get the so called return of 7%? Lower fees, but many people get lower returns. Also, I agree, many 401ks have lower fees than 2%, even much lower fees than 2%, however, many 401ks have even higher fees than 2%. Many people also don't have a choice of which 401k to invest in through an employer.
You seem to not understand what he was showing. He was illustrating the effects of compound interest when it comes to fees. Yes, someone here isn't very bright but sadly it wasn't the guy on PBS.
The claim being made in the original post is that Wall Street is eating up 2/3rds of our 401(k)s, and then we're presented with a completely ridiculous and implausible scenario to back up that claim. If you believe that scenario has any resemblance to the real world or that "Wall Street eats up 2/3rds of your 401(k)" then you have no business judging how bright anyone else is.
You got caught being wrong. Just be man enough to own up to it and we can move on. You specifically referenced his display of how compound interest works in the $100,000 example claiming it was stupid. Just admit you were wrong already and stop trying to move the goal posts.
And how many people actually get the so called return of 7%? Lower fees, but many people get lower returns. Also, I agree, many 401ks have lower fees than 2%, even much lower fees than 2%, however, many 401ks have even higher fees than 2%. Many people also don't have a choice of which 401k to invest in through an employer.
401(k) plans are required to have a variety of available investment options. There may be a "default" option if the participant does not specify otherwise, but that's not the same as having "no choice."
You got caught being wrong. Just be man enough to own up to it and we can move on. You specifically referenced his display of how compound interest works in the $100,000 example claiming it was stupid. Just admit you were wrong already and stop trying to move the goal posts.
The "goalposts" are right in the thread topic. Allow me to copy and paste it for you just to make sure you don't miss it:
" Wall Street eats 2/3rd of your 401(k)"
If you believe the scenario you referenced has any resemblance to the real world or that "Wall Street eats up 2/3rds of your 401(k)" then you have no business judging how bright anyone else is.
Just another example of the facade of social mobility in the US. All the laws on the books are written to protect the uber rich and Wall Street banks due to the fact the government is impregnated from top to bottom with friends of Wall Street. How are the regulators supposed to regulate when there's a revolving door of employees between government regulators and Wall Street? Then when Wall Street's gambling blows up, tax payers have to bail them out so our entire way of life doesn't collapse due to financial armegeddon. Yeah, America is "the land of the free" alright. NOT.
Sadly, we can't have a discussion about the failure of the 401k government program, because conservatives have convinced themselves that the 401k represents some free market solution to retirement savings.
The fact that many millions of workers don't have access to a 401k is irrelevant. The fact that wall street is robbing from us is irrelevant, the fact that many many 401k plans offered terrible choices or was based on company stock for the majority of the history of the 401k is irrelevant.
conservatives see the 401k as an ideological battle of free markets vs government when the 401k is a government program.
conservatives hurt the nation because of their insanity we can never rationally discuss real issues.
The "goalposts" are right in the thread topic. Allow me to copy and paste it for you just to make sure you don't miss it:
" Wall Street eats 2/3rd of your 401(k)"
If you believe the scenario you referenced has any resemblance to the real world or that "Wall Street eats up 2/3rds of your 401(k)" then you have no business judging how bright anyone else is.
Your screen name sure is ironic.
It's possible in theory to lose 2/3 of your potential gains if you are paying an annual expense ration of 2%. Many mutual funds have received heavy criticism for exactly that reason. Why would anyone pay fees when they can just buy an index and the fund doesn't outperform the index.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iamme73
Sadly, we can't have a discussion about the failure of the 401k government program, because conservatives have convinced themselves that the 401k represents some free market solution to retirement savings.
The fact that many millions of workers don't have access to a 401k is irrelevant. The fact that wall street is robbing from us is irrelevant, the fact that many many 401k plans offered terrible choices or was based on company stock for the majority of the history of the 401k is irrelevant.
conservatives see the 401k as an ideological battle of free markets vs government when the 401k is a government program.
conservatives hurt the nation because of their insanity we can never rationally discuss real issues.
How are 401K's a failure? Deferred taxes on principal and gains, company matching, and a range of choices. I just wish SS contributions could be directed to my 401K.
Sadly, we can't have a discussion about the failure of the 401k government program, because conservatives have convinced themselves that the 401k represents some free market solution to retirement savings.
The fact that many millions of workers don't have access to a 401k is irrelevant. The fact that wall street is robbing from us is irrelevant, the fact that many many 401k plans offered terrible choices or was based on company stock for the majority of the history of the 401k is irrelevant.
conservatives see the 401k as an ideological battle of free markets vs government when the 401k is a government program.
conservatives hurt the nation because of their insanity we can never rationally discuss real issues.
Open an IRA. Or a Simple. Or put some money in your mattress. Or a Roth. Or all of the above.
Anyone who has a 2% fee structure on their 401K deserves to lose their money....that is hedge fund levels. And honestly those hedge funds aren't the best deal either IMO but the rich flock to them.
Seriously folks, if you have no clue about finance, invest your 401K stock equity portion ONLY in the SP500 tracking fund! It should have a fee structure under 0.2%. Heck some I believe are under 0.1%.
How are 401K's a failure? Deferred taxes on principal and gains, company matching, and a range of choices. I just wish SS contributions could be directed to my 401K.
Look at the actual record of 401k plans to provide adequate retirement income for the vast majority of workers. It is a failure objectively.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
