The Motley Fool Discussion Boards
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 73974|
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
4. regularly audited
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 1996-2013 trademark and the "Fool" logo is a trademark of The Motley Fool, Inc. Contact Us|