The Motley Fool Discussion Boards

Previous Page

Investing/Strategies / Retirement Investing


Subject:  Re: 401(k)s are too risky for retirement Date:  5/8/2012  4:52 PM
Author:  Hawkwin Number:  70619 of 88498

From the article:

The plan, based on a new retirement model created by New School economics professor Teresa Ghilarducci, would pool employee and employer contributions into a professionally managed, citywide retirement fund.

Not a bad alternative at all if it is:

1. an alternative and not mandatory
2. Has immediate vestment
3. transparent
4. regularly audited
5. Portable

Many 401ks are now offering targeted-date retirement funds so in that respect, employees can be a lot more lazy in selecting and managing their investments.

The lead paragraph of this story makes no sense to me:

She was always good about saving, but because of forced retirement at 62, the self-employed interpreter is now limited to a $500 monthly budget.

Who faces forced retirement at 52 as a self-employed interpreter????

Those few industries that have forced retirement are covered by government pensions so this story smacks as dishonest from the start.
Copyright 1996-2018 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us