Thanks v. The pie chart looks much more like what I'd expect. The top 1% and top 10% still dominate, but that's also because we're dealing with real numbers. Those high earners are saving more in part because they'll need more to sustain them in retirement. The lower percentiles need fewer actual dollars to sustain themselves.
But the "stock" in my retirement funds is held almost exclusively in mutual funds.
It's held *exclusively* in mutual funds. I don't know any retirement fund that allows direct investment.
I think your point is an interesting one. And I wonder if the original figures are a % of all directly held stock, or a % of stock ownership as a whole - those could be very different #s with different meanings. Regardless, though, the control issue is an interesting one - and one that really relates more directly to direct ownership since you can't control the ownership in mutual funds.
Many 401(k)s allow investment in your employer's stock. At my first job out of college, my 401(k) had the option to purchase individual stocks in any company I wanted, although I didn't choose to do that and haven't had that option since. I think you can purchase almost anything with an IRA.
But the "stock" in my retirement funds is held almost exclusively in mutual funds.
It's held *exclusively* in mutual funds. I don't know any retirement fund that allows direct investment.
I think your point is an interesting one. And I wonder if the original figures are a % of all directly held stock, or a % of stock ownership as a whole - those could be very different #s with different meanings. Regardless, though, the control issue is an interesting one - and one that really relates more directly to direct ownership since you can't control the ownership in mutual funds.
My 401(k) permits direct investment. I don't utilize that option, but there are many higher-earning folks here that do.
It's held *exclusively* in mutual funds. I don't know any retirement fund that allows direct investment.
I think your point is an interesting one. And I wonder if the original figures are a % of all directly held stock, or a % of stock ownership as a whole - those could be very different #s with different meanings. Regardless, though, the control issue is an interesting one - and one that really relates more directly to direct ownership since you can't control the ownership in mutual funds.
Many 401(k)s allow investment in your employer's stock. At my first job out of college, my 401(k) had the option to purchase individual stocks in any company I wanted, although I didn't choose to do that and haven't had that option since. I think you can purchase almost anything with an IRA.
Ours does as well and we both hold a small amount. In fact for the past few years they were matching only with employer stock. I made sure to balance quarterly to prevent having too high of a percentage.
I also find this ironic giving the impending sequester which, if it happens, will likely hurt the DC market - one of the very few that has been relatively insulated in the economic downturn.
I think we are seeing some irrational exuberance here. Some of the enthusiasm is warranted - economic indicators are indeed improving - but much of it is grounded merely in hope. While I don't discount the impact of optimism on the market, we still have a fundamental employment problem. Unemployment hovers between 12 and 15 million people, depending upon how you calculate it, and many of these people are the long-term unemployed, meaning entry back into the market is going to be that much more difficult for them. Moreover, the jobs that are being added to the economy are of the minimum wage variety. The only industry showing a consistent and substantive uptick is construction, which is bitterly ironic.
So no, I won't be dumping my cash into the market today, and yes, we are going to slump if the sequester takes place.
I agree with this, although I don't think people should be running entirely out of equities either. Also, keep in mind that many investors can't find enough other sectors to put their money into - bonds were hot, and have gotten cold, so that's less of an option. Interest rates are so low, so yields on safer bets like Treasuries are almost useless. Real estate is too tricky...so I bet many investors are seeking higher returns in equities.
I think we are seeing some irrational exuberance here. Some of the enthusiasm is warranted - economic indicators are indeed improving - but much of it is grounded merely in hope. While I don't discount the impact of optimism on the market, we still have a fundamental employment problem. Unemployment hovers between 12 and 15 million people, depending upon how you calculate it, and many of these people are the long-term unemployed, meaning entry back into the market is going to be that much more difficult for them. Moreover, the jobs that are being added to the economy are of the minimum wage variety. The only industry showing a consistent and substantive uptick is construction, which is bitterly ironic.
So no, I won't be dumping my cash into the market today, and yes, we are going to slump if the sequester takes place.
I agree with this, although I don't think people should be running entirely out of equities either. Also, keep in mind that many investors can't find enough other sectors to put their money into - bonds were hot, and have gotten cold, so that's less of an option. Interest rates are so low, so yields on safer bets like Treasuries are almost useless. Real estate is too tricky...so I bet many investors are seeking higher returns in equities.
Right, this is the conundrum. This is also exactly what the Fed wants with its lower rates.
Does anyone think it would be worth moving money to a fixed fund and then back over after the stock market dips again? I know it is a gamble but it seems highly likely that it will dip down soon. I am still seeing companies laying off and not a whole bunch of hiring.
I wonder the same thing bout my dads TSP account. It's 100% in a c fund right now an I've been meanin to discuss with him and shift things around but I've been so busy. He's 60 so a huge dip could really affect his plans to retire soon
Mine is a tsp too. I was thinking I could move over c,s and international to G then move them back. I don't normally move it around very much. I am surprised he has a 100% in C. It might be good for him to move it around a little more to be more balanced.
we just recently started investing and I don't feel comfortable knowing we invested at the highest point in six years.
we originally invested $25k and are up only $67.81. I'm afraid we'll only lose from here - but I guess we just have to think of it as really long-term.