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.
due to the fact the government is impregnated from top to bottom with friends of Wall Street. How are the regulators supposed to regulate when there's a revolving door of employees between government regulators and Wall Street?
An inevitable result of regulation and government interference in the economy. If the left gets it's way in regard to our economic system you better get used to it; it only going to get worse.
Vanguard is your friend. Charles Schwab too. 80% of professional managers under-perform the relevant index after management fees are taken into account.
Use any compound interest calculator online and start with an easy example---say $100,000 earning 7% interest over 50 years.
Now change the interest earned to 5% (which amounts to a 2% annual fee) and you'll see your earnings drop by near 2/3rds.
What financial advisers should really talk about are the powers of compounded fees rather than the power of compounded returns. Let's be real here, even though many 401ks have less than 2% fees, many have higher fees. Also, even if you have lower fees, many people earn less than 7% returns and in reality earn only 3-5%.
But PBS is being dishonest here.
This assumes that people:
A) park a large amount of money into a 401K and let it sit there untouched for 40 years with no future contributions. In real life, people start off with small contributions and build their account up. Therefore, the fees they use would in fact eat up one third not two thirds of a 401K's return.
B) have extremely high fees and have no low fee options. All of my 401K options and my wives 401K options have fees below 2% -- an S&P 500 index fund in her 401K has a 0.1% management fee.
C) will tolerate a fund performing below historical returns for 40 years. Their example of 7% over the course of 40 years is a really poor stock fund, especially with the outrageous fees....
PBS is stacking their report with faulty evidence.... They are using a 401K unlike how people really use it, whichs helps get the results they want, they then have a fund with outrageously high fees that strongly underperforms.....
PBS did not show a realistic portrayal.
Why are we up in arms over 401K fees...when my Social Security fees are higher than my 401K fees? Why are we up in arms over 401K fees...when my Michigan Teacher's pension fees are higher than my 401K fees?
Why do liberals get upset over private sector fees that are less than public sector fees, while ignoring the public sector fees?
A) park a large amount of money into a 401K and let it sit there untouched for 40 years with no future contributions. In real life, people start off with small contributions and build their account up. Therefore, the fees they use would in fact eat up one third not two thirds of a 401K's return.
B) have extremely high fees and have no low fee options. All of my 401K options and my wives 401K options have fees below 2% -- an S&P 500 index fund in her 401K has a 0.1% management fee.
C) will tolerate a fund performing below historical returns for 40 years. Their example of 7% over the course of 40 years is a really poor stock fund, especially with the outrageous fees....
PBS is stacking their report with faulty evidence.... They are using a 401K unlike how people really use it, whichs helps get the results they want, they then have a fund with outrageously high fees that strongly underperforms.....
PBS did not show a realistic portrayal.
Why are we up in arms over 401K fees...when my Social Security fees are higher than my 401K fees? Why are Twe up in arms over 401K fees...when my Michigan Teacher's pension fees are higher than my 401K fees?
Why do liberals get upset over private sector fees that are less than public sector fees, while ignoring the public sector fees?
The example may not have pertained to all, it was meant to get your attention. Yes there are funds that have lower fees, there are also some that have higher fees, cash out fees, etc, he didn't indicate this was the norm.
So do you want to give up 1/3 of your returns in 10 years, 50% in 30 years. You can go to the Vanguard site and see the impact of different fees and time periods, the point is this fees take their toll on your returns.
Many of the state pension funds charge 2% fees, that is one more reason why pension funds are in lousy shape. They are corrupt, the NY State Comptroller Hevesi was convicted of accepting kickbacks from the pension managers, it is an area that is ripe for abuse. Start a new thread if you want, no one indicated that we should accept their failures.
Who the hell pays a 2% fee on a 401k? And if you pay too much in fees, why wouldn't you move your funds to someone with a better fee structure?
Anyone who doesn't beat the market net of fees for an investing firm would be fired quicker than you can blink. I have seen it many times.
Come back to thread after you've worked for a corp. which forces decisions on its 401k's. Noteveryone can just "cash out"
and return to a more gullible forum, like business and employment.lol.
Wall Street shill.
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.
