I think the statement "So, who do you believe: the anonymous economists cited by The Wall Street Journal, or research conducted by the ICI?" indicates Braze is trying to refute the WSJ article.I think most of the posters aren't disagreeing with ICI's numbers but rather with Braze's interpretation of them.To me ICI's numbers seem to support the WSJ statistics rather than Braze's statements.So I think the answer to the question, "It sure does paint a much rosier picture than that of the Journal article, doesn't it?" is at best a half-empty/half-full observation.The WSJ's point was just that raising the IRS limits on these accounts probably wouldn't result in more savings to these accounts because few people hit those limits. If either the WSJ or ICI is to be believed, this is a true (and useful) statement.Of course one should exercise care regarding statistics. I hope Mr. Braze will exercise a little more care.
Best Of |
Favorites & Replies |
Start a New Board |
My Fool |
BATS data provided in real-time. NYSE, NASDAQ and NYSEMKT data delayed 15 minutes.
Real-Time prices provided by BATS. Market data provided by Interactive Data.
Company fundamental data provided by Morningstar. Earnings Estimates, Analyst Ra