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.
The article suggests it is the responsibility of the financial industry along with others to solve the problem. I say no, they are a vehicle for others to perhaps use to solve the problem but the onus is not on them to figure it out. Yes, if they can make a profit as that is what they are in business for go for it. But not at the expense of other investors.
If they don't, the failure is not theirs.
I agree.
If you need someone to manage your investments fine, use those people. But they are not responsible to solve your problems.
The article suggests it is the responsibility of the financial industry along with others to solve the problem. I say no, they are a vehicle for others to perhaps use to solve the problem but the onus is not on them to figure it out. Yes, if they can make a profit as that is what they are in business for go for it. But not at the expense of other investors.
If they don't, the failure is not theirs.
it always amazes me how people spend more time on sports trivia or learning about their car or refrigerator then they do things pertaining to their financial well being . it is like most take no interest , then they pass the blame around for things they did that were bad ideas .
That retirements, including the pension plans, are badly underfunded in the US and in a good part of the world came as no surprise. Neither are the observations on people living longer. Unless it is just me - we think about the retirement financing questions and strategies focused on the personal. I thought the article - admittedly not the most insightful - brought focus on the macro level gap. And, the massive size of the shortfall suggests that even the extremely modest attempts at filling it could lead to some developments that are not necessarily commonplace. Some of these might impact even those whose retirement assets are otherwise sufficient. That's what I found interesting. I was hoping this might even spark discussion of strategies for minimizing the impact - or even profiting from the developments that take place.
Dimon had just become the only remaining Wall Street boss who led a global bank before the financial crisis. JPMorgan is so big and profitable, and the billionaire has won so much influence, that he’s being followed around the U.S. by a growing crew of critics who want the bank to join their fights against climate change, human-rights abuses, and private prisons. They’ve tried to get his attention by scaling Park Avenue flagpoles, blocking Seattle traffic with tepees, bursting into conferences, and blasting audio of crying children outside his apartment.
A number of my co-workers are convinced that S&P 500 funds are the only thing they need for the rest of their lives. A comment that truly frightens me as they have apparently forgotten what happened to the S&P 500 during the last recession. A S&P 500 Fund has worked fine as a "Set It and Forget It" investment for the past decade but time will eventually run out on this philosophy.
Why do you regard this philosophy as being temporary and transient? The FT's article laments that pension-funds and retirement-schemes have historically been assuming a 15-year life expectancy in retirement, while the new reality is more like 30-40 years. If the "average" retiree really is facing 3 or 4 decades of life post-work, then it would be abjectly stupid to NOT devote a large (likely, overwhelming) percentage of one's portfolio to stocks - and in particular to the S&P 500.
Let's consider some numbers. Someone who has had a 40-year retirement, who finally passed away quietly and serenely this morning, would have entered retirement when Jimmy Carter was president, and Baron's published its infamous article on "The Death of Equities". This retiree would have done fabulously well, had he/she been mostly invested in American stocks... and rather less well, if invested in pretty much anything else. This same retiree would have started working during the FDR administration, would have been born during the Coolidge administration, and would have witnessed the 1929 crash as a kid. Compared to that, what's one "lost decade"?
Let's consider further. A person who was born at the turn of this millennium would be turning 18 this year. This person may very well still be alive into the 22nd century. For an investment horizon of 80+ years, is there anything - anything at all! - that for the average person would be superior to stocks?
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.
