The Argument for Ditching The 401(k) And Starting Over Really interesting proposal.
Touches on a lot of issues that many people will say don't apply to them. Such as Americans having to save more (e.g. than in other countries) because they're taking on more risk and getting lower returns than they'd get with defined benefit (pension) plans or equivalent (annuities). Such as investing not being most people's forté (thus they underperform DB plans and the market). No one here, of course. :-)
Also acknowledges that annuities transfer wealth to the affluent (since the affluent tend to live longer). On the flip side, notes that the affluent don't need tax breaks to motivate them to save for
retirement.
The article also makes brief allusion to the
annuitization puzzle (why most people don't annutize when that is the rational choice).
I like the idea the the first $600 of contributions would be covered by a refundable tax credit, so everyone would be treated the same way - just as everyone pays the same 10% income tax on the first N dollars.
A compact column on a proposal that won't go anywhere, but offers a lot to think about.
The Argument for Ditching The 401(k) And Starting Over
Recommend any long short funds with good track record? Agreed that it's to each his own,
@MikeM. What I object to is the authoritarian in chief telling others what to do in no uncertain terms, when it's clear he doesn't understand anything about them.
One other minor point: category returns aren't especially illuminating.
It’s very rare nowdays for folks eliciting assistance to state their age, years to
retirement, other sources of income, etc. One size does not fit all. Never did.
So, should I dump MSCFX Mairs & Power Small-Cap? I'm holding too. I dumped FSCRX and bought MSCFX last year as Myers' retirement grew closer and I normally give funds at least a few years to make me happy before I'd consider dropping it for another. What I've been hoping for, for a number of years now, is Grandeur Peak's US small cap fund. I'm pretty confident they're just waiting for a time that looks opportune to register the fund but whenever that happens MSCFX will either be eliminated or at least limited to its then current value in my portfolio.
Fund Focus: Franklin Rising Dividends Fund I used WellsTrade a long time ago to buy FT Advisor shares. Then years ago they severely limited the funds you could buy, going from one of the most open platforms to one of the more limited ones. They also overhauled their website, making it difficult if not impossible to even figure out what was available. And they imposed the highest exit fee I've seen (I think it was $95). Nevertheless I left.
The only off brand brokerage that I think I was happy with was Scudder. For a brief time, 1998-1999 (and with a sufficiently high balance) they provided free trades on all the funds they sold, and as I only vaguely recall, fine service. "Preferred Investment Plus" for taxable accounts, "
Retirement Plus" for
retirement accounts. Then Zurich/Kemper/Scudder
moved the whole operation to DLJDirect, effectively closing it down.
Fund Focus: Franklin Rising Dividends Fund @msfI was able to purchase many unusual funds at Think or Swim for less than the required minimum, not sure if they followed the mutual funds requirement as strictly as some other brokerages. I bought positions in FEMDX and SCMVX in my
retirement account for less than the required minimum.
Wells Fargo (Traders) used to allow for purchases of some of the FT Advisor shares, but I have not traded there for some time so not sure if they have become more strict on screening purchases.
CFA Urges ‘No’ Vote On Limiting Investor Right To Sue Funds Over High Fees Not sure what I am missing on this, but it seems to me that fund fees are about the last thing investors should be unaware of these days. I am not suggesting that limiting the ability to take legal action is a good idea. But discussions of fees have been top and center for quite some time now. Isn't it time for folks to take some responsibility for themselves...and not be shocked by what a fund's fees are? Company retirement plans are already under scrutiny to defend fees of all kinds, with both trustees and advisors held responsible for the quality and cost of the investment offered to employees. Virtually everyone who participates in a corporate retirement plan is well aware of the fee issue. Perhaps the bigger question is what is the definition of excessive fees...excessive compared to what. When folks receive a fund prospectus, with all fees described very clearly at the document's front section, and purchase of shares carries the investor's assent that the prospectus was read before buying shares, why should there be any surprise down the road? Just asking, as it seems completely logical. Is there something else upon which this article is based?
