"Boater" wrote in message
...


I understand *that* problem...I'm wondering what *those people* who no
longer believe in "the market" can do to prevent further losses in their
401k portfolios. I would want to withdraw the funds and put them into
something with more integrity than the stock market.


That's a question asked everyday on the various financial planning TV and
radio talk shows.
Without exception, all the "experts" advise people to leave their
investments alone.
They sometimes recommend shifting to less risky, lower yield type
investments, but they all say *DO NOT* take your money out.

I don't know. I keep mine in a hidden mattress.

Eisboch

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:03:48 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:

"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.


That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being
forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual
relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and
are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.

I think the biggest PR problem is how the "bailout" is presented.
If done as a loan, the Chrysler precedent - where the gov actually
made money - would be more palatable.
Of course what requirements the gov puts on the loan, and how they are
enforced, is the tricky part.
Forget about anti-union/anti-management stuff for a bit - all 3
domestics have those issues.
Here's something to think about, and why I posted the
"Sales Facts" link to the WSJ article.
People are car bigots.
What motivates the Cannuck guy and Tom more than anything to say GM
business will be taken over by Ford and Chrysler has nothing to do
with the facts of the automotive industry, but more to do with their
brand preference.
They are Ford/Chrysler guys.
Believe me, I've seen this again and again over many years of
discussions on car groups.
That polls show @40% approve of the "bailout" is actually pretty good.
The domestics have about 45% of U.S. market share.
Probably dissatisfied Chrysler owners dropped out (-:
You perhaps noticed that Mika is a Honda/Toyota head?
Joe is probably a GM guy.
I'm a GM guy.
But only because I get them real cheap used and I know them.
You would not believe how little I've spent on cars.
But hey, I'm flexible.
If GM goes under I might look at Fords, because they will be the new
American whipping boy and have poor resale.
But if I were buying new, I'd go over to the Japs.
I think most GM buyers will do the same.

--Vic

Cars are cars and trucks are trucks. I don't have a particular brand
loyalty. I buy what I happen to like, for various reasons. For daily
drivers, I tend to buy American built, only because they serve the
purpose well.

But, I have more sympathy for Ford right now than GM, mainly because Ford
has been far more pro-active in terms of trying to fix themselves than GM
has. I still don't understand the union relationships with each
manufacturer, and I don't blame unions. They negotiated a contract and
plan their lives on it. Fine.

But guess what? The union work-a-bees need non-union work-a-bees (as
consumers) more than the other way around. And non-union work-a-bees
plan for their financial future in other ways. When the rug is pulled
out from everybody, why do non-union work-a-bees need to contribute to
the welfare and job security of union work-a-bees? Hmmmmmmm?

Eisboch


Gee, Eisboch...why do I have to pay taxes to contribute to the welfare,
job security or retirement of military personnel? (Rhetorical question...I
know the answer.)


Then you should know. It's simply to **** you off.

Eisboch

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:10:55 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.



That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.




If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is
there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax
penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some
sort of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested?
I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might
trust a federally insurance bank or banks.

Some 401k plans allow for a portion to be rolled out into a qualified
plan - which means no taxes/penalties - after certain age/employment
requirements are met. They vary widely, but I'd venture to say most
require you leave employment.
This is how the stock market got so inflated - you lock in as many of
the Ponzi captives as you can.
Any equity trading IRA will have no guarantees, but there are FDIC
insured IRA CD's. That's what I put my retirement money in when I got
a portion out before retirement, then all after retirement.
I immediately tripled my returns in the free market.
In the captive 401k my only "safe" option was the money market fund
which offered littler return.
BTW, one of the first financial bailout actions by the feds was to
guarantee 401k money market funds at 1.00 par value.
Money markets can go negative. If they did there would be no safe
haven in 401k's and that would have been a *real* disaster.
I think Obama's team - maybe Clinton's - mentioned allowing
non-penalized withdrawals from 401k's as an option for those facing
mortgage foreclosure, and Wall Street had a **** fit at the
suggestion.

--Vic

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:52:25 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits.
That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for
retirement.

Funny, I haven't heard much talk of "privatizing" Social Security
lately. I wonder why that is. ;-(

On Mon, 8 Dec 2008 09:57:08 -0500, "Eisboch" wrote:




Cars are cars and trucks are trucks. I don't have a particular brand
loyalty. I buy what I happen to like, for various reasons. For daily
drivers, I tend to buy American built, only because they serve the purpose
well.

Plenty don't have that attitude, hence my mention.

But, I have more sympathy for Ford right now than GM, mainly because Ford
has been far more pro-active in terms of trying to fix themselves than GM
has. I still don't understand the union relationships with each
manufacturer, and I don't blame unions. They negotiated a contract and plan
their lives on it. Fine.

They're all UAW. You can google for contract details, but there won't
be much difference.

But guess what? The union work-a-bees need non-union work-a-bees (as
consumers) more than the other way around. And non-union work-a-bees plan
for their financial future in other ways. When the rug is pulled out from
everybody, why do non-union work-a-bees need to contribute to the welfare
and job security of union work-a-bees? Hmmmmmmm?

They shouldn't have to, but the most onerous part is the sub-pay, and
has to be eliminated. It's one thing to do a loan for workers,
another for those making full pay and not working.
But everything you've just said can be applied to the financial fat
cat bailout, which has already cost 10 times as much as the auto
companies are asking for, and Paulson is still spending, and I still
don't know how that will be paid back.
And even beyond that, why should I be taxed to keep 401k's plan
stuffed with inflated profits?
Every time you hear about how many 401k's are out there, in an attempt
to keep Wall Street propped up, you are hearing BS.
Investment in Wall Street by actual workers is not as widespread as
they would have you think.

--Vic

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
I understand *that* problem...I'm wondering what *those people* who no
longer believe in "the market" can do to prevent further losses in their
401k portfolios. I would want to withdraw the funds and put them into
something with more integrity than the stock market.


That's a question asked everyday on the various financial planning TV and
radio talk shows.
Without exception, all the "experts" advise people to leave their
investments alone.
They sometimes recommend shifting to less risky, lower yield type
investments, but they all say *DO NOT* take your money out.

I don't know. I keep mine in a hidden mattress.

Eisboch




You do that, too?

wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:52:25 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits.
That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for
retirement.

Funny, I haven't heard much talk of "privatizing" Social Security
lately. I wonder why that is. ;-(


Hehehe. McCain talked about it.

Vic Smith wrote:
On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:10:55 -0500, Boater
wrote:

Eisboch wrote:
"Boater" wrote in message
...
Ahhh 401k's.... Too bad about those.


That's one of the reasons why many people are having trouble being forced to
ante up tax dollars to
save GM and it's union in their current form and contractual relationships.
The "majority" are watching their own retirement investments tank, and are
concerned about their jobs, their families, their financial stability.



If you are still employed where your 401k is located and operating, is
there a mechanism to withdraw those funds without withholding or tax
penalty, and put them into another sort of tax deferred account, some
sort of IRA, where you have some say over where the funds are invested?
I wouldn't trust "the market" with my retirement funds, but I might
trust a federally insurance bank or banks.

Some 401k plans allow for a portion to be rolled out into a qualified
plan - which means no taxes/penalties - after certain age/employment
requirements are met. They vary widely, but I'd venture to say most
require you leave employment.
This is how the stock market got so inflated - you lock in as many of
the Ponzi captives as you can.
Any equity trading IRA will have no guarantees, but there are FDIC
insured IRA CD's. That's what I put my retirement money in when I got
a portion out before retirement, then all after retirement.
I immediately tripled my returns in the free market.
In the captive 401k my only "safe" option was the money market fund
which offered littler return.
BTW, one of the first financial bailout actions by the feds was to
guarantee 401k money market funds at 1.00 par value.
Money markets can go negative. If they did there would be no safe
haven in 401k's and that would have been a *real* disaster.
I think Obama's team - maybe Clinton's - mentioned allowing
non-penalized withdrawals from 401k's as an option for those facing
mortgage foreclosure, and Wall Street had a **** fit at the
suggestion.

--Vic



I like FDIC insured IRA CD's. I was wondering if there were a way folks
could pull their money out of 401k programs while still employed and put
them into something not under the control of the wall street crooks.

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"Boater" wrote in message
...


I understand *that* problem...I'm wondering what *those people* who no
longer believe in "the market" can do to prevent further losses in their
401k portfolios. I would want to withdraw the funds and put them into
something with more integrity than the stock market.


That's a question asked everyday on the various financial planning TV and
radio talk shows.
Without exception, all the "experts" advise people to leave their
investments alone.
They sometimes recommend shifting to less risky, lower yield type
investments, but they all say *DO NOT* take your money out.

I don't know. I keep mine in a hidden mattress.

Eisboch


Being a somewhat cynical person, I wonder whos' best interests those
financial people are looking after...the poor sap who sees his investment
shrinking with every monthy report...or the system they've set up with their
rich fee structure.

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 09:18:33 -0600, wrote:

On Mon, 08 Dec 2008 08:52:25 -0500, Eisboch wrote:


They may have 401k's and/or similar and may make some form of matching
contributions, along with matching contributions to SS benefits.
That's about it, and that's how the majority of people plan for
retirement.

Funny, I haven't heard much talk of "privatizing" Social Security
lately. I wonder why that is. ;-(

Savings and SS were the factors I used in planning retirement.
Never bought into the equity craze.
I do have a big chunk of traditional pension coming when I hit 65,
but since I don't trust anything but money in the bank and SS,
I always looked at that as icing on the cake.
Why does everybody want to be rich?
I do feel for some latecomers to the Wall Street Ponzi scheme.
I've got a buddy who started socking the max into his 401k in
anticipation of retirement who is actually losing his paycheck
contributions of years past.
Sort of a retroactive pay decrease.
But he could have chosen the money market fund.
Not sure, but many who started contributions within the last ten years
or so might be in the same boat.
And usually contributions are heavier as you approach retirement, as
your salary is higher, the rules allow for higher yearly contribution,
and the kids are hopefully out of college.

--Vic

--Vic