It was after all, a Texas-sized scam

Post #23,795 by Ashton 1/10/02 4:19:05 PM Reply	It was after all, a Texas-sized scam I hear you can lose 20 C5-As in East Texas.. Now.. you can get 40 years for possession of (say) a month's supply of your fav weed: ever since hemp was classified as akin to heroin (!!). Any bets on whether even One of these scum shall spend even a night in jail? Any bets on the effectiveness of Messrs. Bush Jr. and Cheney - in camouflaging their activities re Enron, over more than a decade? Just [oil] asking [oil] ... [oil] Ashton
Post #23,801 by a6l6e6x 1/10/02 4:41:34 PM Reply	Well, DoJ will investigate Enron case. And we all know what a fine job they do. [link\|http://www.nytimes.com/2002/01/10/business/10ENRO.html\|See NY Times article.] But, perhaps I'm being hasty. Let's give them a chance. What I would be in favor of, however, is a regulation for 401-K plans to prohibit investment in the company or company affiliates (subsidiary or parent or sibling). Otherwise, obvious serious conflicts of interest are possible. It's a bad idea, in any case, to have all your eggs in one basket. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #23,823 by bbronson 1/10/02 5:46:48 PM Reply	Don't agree with regulation proposal "What I would be in favor of, however, is a regulation for 401-K plans to prohibit investment in the company or company affiliates (subsidiary or parent or sibling). Otherwise, obvious serious conflicts of interest are possible. It's a bad idea, in any case, to have all your eggs in one basket." I'm assuming you mean preventing the employees from selecting company stock as their 401-K investment. I can't agree with your regulation idea. For every person who's prevented from losing their shirt from that regulation, we can find another that the regulation prevents becoming rich. Your last sentence says it all. People make choices. Some are good and some are bad. On principle, I think the government should not be in the business of preventing people from making what could be bad choices. Brian Bronson
Post #23,827 by Arkadiy 1/10/02 6:11:56 PM Reply	No blackouts on 401K A better regulation would probably prohibit company-imposed blackouts on stocks held in employees' 401k plans.
Post #23,900 by a6l6e6x 1/11/02 11:10:03 AM Reply	Re: Don't agree with regulation proposal Perhaps you have a point that total prohibition is a bit harsh, but certainly a limit in 10%-25% range to protect a 401-K retirement investment makes sense. Diversification of investment is key to risk management. If you were hell-bent on investing in your employer, nothing would prevent you from investing in your employer in your IRAs, or personal brokerage accounts. And then there are possibly stock options as well. The problem with 401-Ks is that the employer has a lot to do with how it's managed, what investment choices the employee has, how often an employee can shift investments from one choice to another, etc. Especially when the employer does some "matching" contributions, they may have a coercive influence on your choices. The choices you are given, in mutual funds let's say, may not be the best in any case. Often the employer gets a kickback (although they would never call it that) from the investment manager firm (e.g. T. Rowe Price) they select. The size of kickback may influence your company whom they pick when changes are made. The point is, although technically it's your retirement money, there are many aspects of its evolution you do not control. That's the part that bothers me. Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
Post #23,830 by JayMehaffey 1/10/02 8:02:43 PM Reply	To harsh There are a lot of good reasons for an employee to be invested in the company they work for and for the company to to want it's employees to own stock. However, I do think a cap on the percent that can be invested is in order. Something on the order of 20% to 25%. That is a high enough number that it won't get in the way of a sane investor but will keep a person from putting all of their eggs in one basket. Jay
Post #23,841 by bconnors 1/10/02 10:37:51 PM Reply	More important is the company match Places like Enron, my former employer, and other high-tech companies give 100% of their match in company stock. So while you, the employee, can diversify your contributions into several funds, the company gives you nothing but empty promises. It costs them nothing to issue stock and give you some once or twice a year since it's really nothing more than an accounting manuever in some digital account. After all, you can't sell it until you're 59 1/2 anyway. My take would be a regulation that forces the company match to be at least 50% cash that you could put into any or all funds available in the plan. BConnors "Prepare for metamorphosis. Ready, Kafka?"
Post #23,901 by a6l6e6x 1/11/02 11:11:46 AM Reply	Good point! Alex Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction. -- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)

Welcome to IWETHEY!