Posted on 11/13/2008 5:48:27 AM PST by Libloather
That's an unusual 401(k). The majority of them base the "matching amount" on what you, as the employee contribute. With the current laws, companies have a vested interest in making sure that even "peons" like you save and receive matches at comparable rates to those higher in the company.
So because I'm curious, is you match smalller because your contributions are smaller; i.e., if you saved more, would you get a higher match?
The unintended consequences of Obama's election and the policies that his administration will pursue guarantee that he will preside over the greatest financial collapse in U.S. history. The recent stock market declines are but a prelude of what is to come. Obama may well achieve a U.S GDP of $4.5 Trillion per year in real dollars (from the current $14 Trillion a year), with two-thirds of it government spending (vice the current 37%), in less than four years.
If you don't think it can happen, consider what an annual 25% inflation rate compounded over four years will do to a nominally flat GDP. Under Obama, the government is going to "print" trillions of dollars every year.
Capital, innovation, and intellectual property already are fleeing the U.S. at a rate never witnessed before in history. Capital that remains is being converted to hard (but ultimately non-productive) assets in record amounts.
No doubt the business press will continuously report on the miracles of the Obama economy, but the numbers will be based upon electronic digits (not even script) worth less than Monopoly money, and created in ever increasing supplies.
Again, if you don't think it is possible, a single rogue trader, Jerome Kerval, created $74 Billion, using fictitious, electronically scripted trades, at Societe General (France's second largest bank) in a matter of months before he was caught last January.
The government of France worked with Societe General to cover and conceal the fraud over a period of five days, reducing the "real" loss to $7B. If the Martin Luther King holiday in the U.S had not closed access to U.S. markets for one of those days, they probably could have completely covered it up and the public never would have known.
Forget the demonstrated Democrat ability to manufacture votes. Imagine government sanctioned electronic manipulation of the markets and electronic creation of "capital" in the form of ever increasing bailouts and handouts.
Obama will deliberately hang the American dollar on a roll in a men's room stall, next to the ones where he is preparing to hang the Constitution and the BIll of Rights. In an effort to buy time and forestall the inevitable, a full-scale assault on private property rights is already under way.
Corporate governance is demonstrably broken now, made worse by the decision to bail out companies rather than let them fail. It is about to become much worse as the primary measure of success in business becomes not producing great products at a fair price, but pursuit of government guarantees and bailouts. All companies are Airbus now.
Eventually, and sooner rather than latter, Obama will be forced to dramatically shrink government spending and will likely have to default on Social Security, Medicare, and Treasury obligations.
It couldn't happen to a nicer guy. And it will be the lasting legacy of the Democrat party.
The severe downside is that the U.S. economy under Obama is going to make the Wiemar Republic and current Zimbabwe economies look good by comparison.
Absolutely dead on!
The "great reckoning" you refer to is the inevitable end to the silly, delusional notion that any human society is capable of accommodating large numbers of old and not-so-old people who spend decades of their lives in a state called "retirement" where they don't engage in nearly enough productive activity to keep themselves alive.
I’ve got a question for anyone who wants to put forth an opinion: My 401K has lost 1/3 of its value but I have moved future contributions to a Guaranteed Fund (low interes, but at least no losses). I stand to lose even more but am hesitating to move the remaining dollars into this fund. Should I bite the bullet and just do it? Or hold fast? I won’t live long enough to see it get back in the red (near retirement), but I’m thinking about 10-15 years out. Anybody got a crystal ball?
It's a sure sign that we won't be in business much longer here.To compound our problems,our overseas customers aren't paying their bills.They promise to send us payment,but never do.We're taking hundreds of thousands and our business only gross' 5 million per year.
While we all wish we had crystal balls, all we really have is faith (or lack thereof) in the markets. If you have a longer timeline, historically, the markets have always recovered.
The fundamentals of investing are still true. Maintain a portfolio allocation appropriate for your age. Save as much as you can. With risk generally comes reward, but don't get so risky you can't sleep at night.
Thanks for your comments. In truth, I can pretend the investments don’t exist in order to sleep at night because I won’t live long enough to see them return to prior levels. Or if I do, I really don’t plan to spend the money anyway, as I am learning to live on less and would like to leave those funds to a daughter who’s on the autistic spectrum. I just hope they are worth something more when I “check out”.
Your company is already hurting badly and he needs to stop the bleeding. I think a first step is to refuse to send more merchandise until bills are paid by those whose accounts are outstanding. Your boss needs a reality check. Who is giving him/her financial advice??
My opinion:move what you have invested into a “Cash” account that will neither lose,nor gain.Stop putting more money into a losing pit and put it in either a Money Market account or just save it.That way,you don’t lose ANY more money.When the market hits bottom(and we have a ways to go) you can start investing again.
He’s an idiot.He gets advice from no one.He’s the smartest man in the world.Just ask him.
How do you equate the exchange as giving you a bigger paycheck?
The purpose here is to convince us that Obama's plan to eliminate the 401k tax deduction in favor of an expanded government retirement program is a wonderful idea. See these nasty employers can just take it away from you whenever they want. Never mind that the government can too.
Add to Victor's comment the probable reality of the market going down 2-5% per week after Zer0's election/mandate to rule to the actual installation of the royal Zer0 as life long el Presidente in January 2009. When Zer0 presents the Rat proposal to replace all our our 401k's/Iras with the new Social Security Scam II notes to the supposed values in August of this year. Most Americans will crawl on their bellies thanking Lord Obama from delivering them from the awful free market 401k's/IRA's.
If your investment horizon (i.e. retirement date) is 10-15 years out, then you would probably be best served keeping the funds where they are because moving them to the low-return fund would equate to the investment strategy of "buy-high and sell-low". When the value of the underlying securities comes back up (as it most probably will) the value of your investment in those funds will also come back. As for your future investments, I would look for undervalued assets to direct the future investment funds so that you will get a bigger bang for your buck when those assets appreciate as well. If you were retiring next year, my advice would be different.
Well, I had planned to retire next year when my social security kicks in but now I am planning to work at least five more years. What strategy would you have given me for retirement next year?
Then I think I would start looking for another job!
If the survival of someone's business depends on cutting a $6k contribution today, then perhaps that person shouldn't be running a business.
Zero will reign over a Zero-Interest Rate Policy.
We’re turning Japanese...
Depending on how much you have in the funds I would probably recommend putting the bulk of your investement into income securities (bonds, etc.) that would produce a steady reliable cash flow, and move a smaller amount into an index fund that would allow for growth of those funds when the market improves. This portion of the fund could be monitored and as the market improves and the fund grows this would allow you to supplement the income fund.
Perhaps not. But if that person goes out of business, then jobs will be lost.
I am a firm believer in the golden rule. Them that has the gold makes the rules. The employees can accept the rules or they can leave to find greener pastures. It always takes two to tango.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.