Voting for Obama? Kiss your 401ks goodbye

[Celest]

Well Brug, I never argued that the SS system was working and nothing needed to be changed. I was addressing that the changes that was attempted to the 401k system wasnt needed nor do I think that this is needed.

[Brugdor]

Well Brug, I never argued that the SS system was working and nothing needed to be changed. I was addressing that the changes that was attempted to the 401k system wasnt needed nor do I think that this is needed.

Well then....er....we are...in agreement. *faints*   

[JC]

Isn't THAT position essentially the preamble to the constitution?

Wouldn't know, nor care.  We've got a Charter here, thanks.

[Brugdor]

http://www.washingtonwatch.com/blog/2008/10/23/bailout-scandal-undisclosed-sums-paid-to-ny-mellon-bank/

I am both shocked and awed. 

Bailout Scandal: Undisclosed Sums Paid to NY Mellon Bank

Posted by Jim Harper, October 23, 2008 at 9:21 am

Just two weeks after the passage of the bailout bill, and one day after a Treasury Department official declared, “we are committed to transparency and oversight in all aspects of the program,” the Treasury Department began covering up the amount it would pay to New York Mellon Bank to act as a financial agent in the bailout.

The amount to be paid the bank in the contract posted to the Web is blacked out.

More at link

Yet another endorsement for letting the government anywhere near our money.

[karategoldfish]

I dunno man. My 401k is shrinking pretty rapidly. The good thing about social security is that it still EXISTS. I am thinking about nixing my contributions to my retirement and just opening up an IRA account. The interest rate at Chase bank is higher than what my investment company is earning for me. At least an IRA earns a positive return! Argh.

Financial gurus, help me out. How is your retirement set up?

[Solwyn]

Isn't THAT position essentially the preamble to the constitution?

Wouldn't know, nor care.  We've got a Charter here, thanks.

I guess I was mistaken, I thought we were talking about the way an American legal precedent was going to be affected by an American election. I must have misread the thread name.

[Jeff]

I dunno man. My 401k is shrinking pretty rapidly. The good thing about social security is that it still EXISTS. I am thinking about nixing my contributions to my retirement and just opening up an IRA account. The interest rate at Chase bank is higher than what my investment company is earning for me. At least an IRA earns a positive return! Argh.

Financial gurus, help me out. How is your retirement set up?

Sounds like your 401k is in mutual funds or stocks? Don't you have the option of lower-risk plans like bonds, or lower-risk mutual funds that would be more likely to earn a positive return? I don't know the 401k system so I can't say much about it.

[Celest]

Right now it's a very bad time to be in the S&P(they have most of the money stocks such as banking and the like).

Best bet is if your 401k provider allows it, shift anything you have in high risk funds over to low risk funds. This way you can minimize the loses you have while the market is fubar.


Also, Brug, I might be a social liberal but I am a fiscal conservative... =P

[Hoopy Frood]

Actually, for young'uns like KFish, switching into low risk is probably bad. Barring a complete meltdown of the financial system as we know it (in which case it won't matter where you put your money), the markets will bounce back. They always do. If you have plenty of time before retirement (say at least 30 years away) there is no real reason to have more than 20% of your investments in stability funds. The rest should be in growth funds/stocks.

[Celest]

Well it's more of a move to protect what she already has in there until we get through this market instability.

While overall, she is better off with higher risk to build up capital in the long run, there is no reason for her to stay in high risk funds and bonds while there is so much turmoil in the market. Once it settles down then she should by all means move back to a distribution pointed more towards the riskier side.

[BlueCross]

The only risk is if the value is going to go to zero.  Silly to sell your stuff at the low end, which guarantees you will lose money.

If you believe the market will bounce back, you gotta hang onto your stuff.

[Celest]

We went through this with my Grandad's funds and the like.

Pretty much he was heaviely invested in money and the like and after the losses hit the 20k mark, we pulled the plug which was a good thing since that was before the bottom fell out, which would have wiped out pretty much the majority of his retirement.

Like I said, it depends on what you are in and where the high risk part of your portfolio falls as to whether or not it'd be prudent to make such a move and without knowing what KG's portfolio has, I cant really say forcertain outside of making suggestions with 'Here's something to consider' attatched to it.

[BlueCross]

Good point.  It does depend on how long you can weather the storm.  Glad to hear he pulled out before the big crunch.