But it’s important to support it with factual evidence.Making excessive claims like this in their defense damages their credibility, even if they aren’t the ones who made the claim.
Embedded Link
Rachel Maddow says Wall Street fees claim a third of 401(k) values
On a tirade against Wall Street — and the critics of Occupy Wall Street protesters — Rachel Maddow used a “three pillars” illustration on her MSNBC show Oct. 19, 2011, to talk about the cr…
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
Agreed… it needs to be grounded in facts.
What IS sad about US 401(k) plans is that in order to get matching contributions we’re FORCED to use “managed” plans which carry those fees. Frankly, they don’t “manage” anything for me, they just give me a list of options (I suppose they’re managing the bundling of company stocks in individual funds… fair enough). What I find unfair is that I incur additional FEES if I move my money around to much. One year I made 30% return by actively moving my money around to different funds. Now they’ll only allow me to do it a few times a year or they call me a day trader and I get more fees. Doesn’t seem fair…
I don’t see how this has any bearing on OWS since they didn’t post the article, Rachel Maddow from MSNBC was responsible for that error. While she didn’t do the research, there is still a significant amount of money that, according to PolitiFact, amounts to almost 14% of the retirement savings that are NOT distributed. It stills adds up to a chunk of change.
The argument that fund managers are entitled to the fees is BS since they get paid whether or not you make money on your investment. If the fund managers want to lose when you lose, then I would be okay with that. Since the ‘govt.’ wants us to make out own retirement, then they will need to come up with an equitable alternative to the status quo.
How it relates to OWS is right there in what I posted. You don’t even need to go and read the full article.
Your opening statement is what I take issue with. The Occupy Wall Street movement had nothing to do with Ms. Maddows article. Therefore it should have no bearing on the movement itself. Yet you open your statement with “I’m generally supportive.……”; does this mean that your support is now diminished because of a talking head’s error
The movement did not ask for her comparison and she was the one that erred in her analysis. If you don’t understand the logic in that, then it’s moot to even discuss it.
It is important to recognize, as Mr. Spoerry so aptly pointed out, that there is a significant amount of money paid out in fees.
I never claimed they did! Read what I wrote!
It doesn’t hurt their credibility because some talking head made that analysis, at least not to those who make the distinction of what they say and advocate, versus what is said about them.
Fine you live in this pretend world where people base their opinions purely on what the organization itself says.
I will continue to live in the real world where idiotic statements by supposed supporters absolutely hurt credibility.