There are two possibilities:
Either an Enron employee put all or most of their contributions into Enron stock, or they put only some or none into Enron stock and put it in mutual funds instead.
People who (1) were employed at Enron, (2) took Enron matching shares and (3) spent all their discretionary contributions on Enron shares tripled down.
Those who declined to invest their voluntary contributions in Enron shares did not put all their eggs in one basket.
No "breakdown" is necessary.
If someone used their contributions over the life of their employment to invest in mutual funds, they did not lose all their money.
If someone used their contributions to buy Enron stock they did lose all their money.
The people who are complaining about losing their lifesavings are by defintion the people who put all or the lion's share into Enron stock.
OK, so you're just speculating. Thank you.
I can tell you *exactly* what any possible mutual fund investments during that time would have been doing for them - losing them 6% per year, like mine did for 4 years = minus 25% of initial investment.
They believed the fraud and hype of their bosses, who were selling their own Enron stock while telling them to keep buying and drinking the Kool-Aid.
I'm glad I never liked that crew or I would've been right in the middle of all of it, like friends and acquaintances were. Ironically, I wound up the same way, but by a different path.
62% of the assets in the employees' 401(k) were in Enron stock. I once saw the mutual fund choices that employees could use. There were some good funds--some duds, but a lot of well-diversified choices.
Ask any financial planner and he or she will tell you: don't put more than 10% of your investments into any one stock--especially your employer's stock.
People got greedy, and they got burned. Badly.
You're exactly right on this, wideawake.