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.
It depends on how big/small the company is, who manages their 401K and what choices you have.
Some of the smaller companies have very limited options and this type of ruling would definitely hurt those investors.
There's generally no reason to sign up for a company-sponsored 401k unless there's a match in play.
Although I think the whole scheme needs to be restructured such that the match is paid to an account held in an institution of your choosing the way Australia does it. While we're at it, do the same with social security too.
(relevant portion):
“(i) consider environmental, social, governance, or similar factors, in connection with carrying out an investment decision, strategy, or objective, or other fiduciary act; and
“(ii) consider collateral environmental, social, governance, or similar factors as tie-breakers when competing investments can reasonably be expected to serve the plan’s economic interests equally well with respect to expected return and risk over the appropriate time horizon.
Thank you for the link. This says the fiduciary may consider environmental and social issues as long as they discharge their primary fiduciary duties, outlined in Section 404 of the link below (p. 215 of the PDF). There is a huge difference in this saying "may" and it saying "shall." So I don't see it changing anything since the core requirements prescribed by Section 404 don't change.
It depends on how big/small the company is, who manages their 401K and what choices you have.
Some of the smaller companies have very limited options and this type of ruling would definitely hurt those investors.
So this change adds more freedom rather than restrictions that previously existed?
There's generally no reason to sign up for a company-sponsored 401k unless there's a match in play.
Although I think the whole scheme needs to be restructured such that the match is paid to an account held in an institution of your choosing the way Australia does it. While we're at it, do the same with social security too.
The match is great, but the other benefit is the tax advantaged treatment. Depending on your plan, you can defer taxes on up to $58,000 (more if you're elderly).
The link saying "Click here to read the proposed rule" from the sketchy source provided by the OP was dead.
the link works fine.
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.
