-
Welcome to the TSP Talk Forums forums.
You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, join our AutoTracker, and access many other special features. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. -
Please read our AutoTracker policy on the IFT deadline and remaining active. Thanks!
-
$ - Premium Service Content (Info) | AutoTracker Monthly Winners | Is Gmail et al, Blocking Our emails?
Find us on: Facebook & X | Posting Copyrighted Material
-
20% Off Annual Premium Subscriptions!*
Ends Jan 18... Click Here For More Information
* For new or current subscribers -
Join the TSP Talk AutoTracker: How to Get Started | Login | Main AutoTracker Page
-
The Forum works well on MOBILE devices without an app: Just go to: https://forum.tsptalk.com ...
Or you can now use TapaTalk again!
Merlin Account talk
- Thread starter merlin
- Start date
grandma
Well-known member
...and a great profitable New Year to you, Merlin!
merlin
Member
| Top News
Americans Oppose Initiatives Limiting 401(k) Choices, ICI Says
January 08, 2010
By Jeff Plungis
Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. investors oppose federal initiatives that would force them to give up control over their 401(k) accounts, the Investment Company Institute said.
Seven in 10 U.S. households object to the idea of the government requiring retirees to convert part of their savings into annuities guaranteeing a steady payment for life, according to an institute-funded report today.
“Households’ views on policy changes revealed a preference to preserve retirement account features and flexibility,” the institute, which represents the mutual-fund industry, said in the report.
The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.
The institute’s member companies manage $11.6 trillion of assets in mutual funds, including employer-sponsored 401(k) accounts. Some lawmakers have questioned the public-policy value of the tax benefits for people investing in retirement accounts, the ICI said in a report today.
The average 401(k) fund balance dropped 31 percent to $47,500 at the end of March 2009 from $69,200 at the end of 2007, according to a Fidelity Investments review of 11 million accounts it manages. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index tumbled 46 percent in that period. The average balance of the Fidelity accounts recovered to $60,700 as of last Sept. 30 as the stock market rebounded.
Senator Herb Kohl, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, proposed legislation on Dec. 16 to require fund companies to do more to ensure 401(k) options are appropriate for workers. The Wisconsin Democrat cited reports that target- date funds designed for people retiring in 2010 invested in high-yield, high-risk corporate bonds.
Representative George Miller, a California Democrat, is advocating legislation to require more disclosure about 401(k) fees paid by investors. The Education and Labor Committee, which Miller leads, approved a bill requiring more disclosure about fees in June.
The ICI survey was based on a telephone survey of 3,000 households from Nov. 20 to Dec. 20 and had a sampling error of plus or minus 1.8 percent.
--With assistance from Theo Francis in Washington. Editors: Tina Davis, Chris Thompson
To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Plungis in Washington at +1-202-624-1835 or jplungis@bloomberg.net.About Advertising EDGE Programs Reprints Terms of Use Disclaimer Privacy Notice Ethics Code Contact Us Site Map Press Room
©2009 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved.
Americans Oppose Initiatives Limiting 401(k) Choices, ICI Says
January 08, 2010
By Jeff Plungis
Jan. 8 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. investors oppose federal initiatives that would force them to give up control over their 401(k) accounts, the Investment Company Institute said.
Seven in 10 U.S. households object to the idea of the government requiring retirees to convert part of their savings into annuities guaranteeing a steady payment for life, according to an institute-funded report today.
“Households’ views on policy changes revealed a preference to preserve retirement account features and flexibility,” the institute, which represents the mutual-fund industry, said in the report.
The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.
The institute’s member companies manage $11.6 trillion of assets in mutual funds, including employer-sponsored 401(k) accounts. Some lawmakers have questioned the public-policy value of the tax benefits for people investing in retirement accounts, the ICI said in a report today.
The average 401(k) fund balance dropped 31 percent to $47,500 at the end of March 2009 from $69,200 at the end of 2007, according to a Fidelity Investments review of 11 million accounts it manages. The Standard & Poor’s 500 Index tumbled 46 percent in that period. The average balance of the Fidelity accounts recovered to $60,700 as of last Sept. 30 as the stock market rebounded.
Senator Herb Kohl, chairman of the Senate Special Committee on Aging, proposed legislation on Dec. 16 to require fund companies to do more to ensure 401(k) options are appropriate for workers. The Wisconsin Democrat cited reports that target- date funds designed for people retiring in 2010 invested in high-yield, high-risk corporate bonds.
Representative George Miller, a California Democrat, is advocating legislation to require more disclosure about 401(k) fees paid by investors. The Education and Labor Committee, which Miller leads, approved a bill requiring more disclosure about fees in June.
The ICI survey was based on a telephone survey of 3,000 households from Nov. 20 to Dec. 20 and had a sampling error of plus or minus 1.8 percent.
--With assistance from Theo Francis in Washington. Editors: Tina Davis, Chris Thompson
To contact the reporter on this story: Jeff Plungis in Washington at +1-202-624-1835 or jplungis@bloomberg.net.About Advertising EDGE Programs Reprints Terms of Use Disclaimer Privacy Notice Ethics Code Contact Us Site Map Press Room
©2009 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved.
merlin
Member
Retirement January 8, 2010, 5:03PM EST
Retiree Annuities May Be Promoted by Obama Aides
The government is looking at ways to promote the conversion of 401(k)s and IRAs into steady payment streams after a significant decline in plan balances
By Theo Francis
(Bloomberg) — The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged.
The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.
Annuities generally guarantee income until the retiree's death, and often that of a surviving spouse as well. They are designed to protect against the risk that retirees outlive their savings, a danger made clear by market losses suffered by older Americans over the last year, David Certner, legislative counsel for AARP, said in an interview.
"There's a real desire on a lot of people's parts to try to encourage something other than just rolling over a lump sum, to make sure this money will actually last a lifetime," said Certner, legislative counsel for Washington-based AARP, the biggest U.S. advocacy group for retirees.
Promoting annuities may benefit companies that provide them through employers, including ING Groep NV (INGA:NA) and Prudential Financial Inc. (PRU), or sell them directly to individuals, such as American International Group Inc. (AIG), the insurer that has received $182.3 billion in government aid.
Balances Fall
The average 401(k) fund balance dropped 31 percent to $47,500 at the end of March 2009 from $69,200 at the end of 2007, according to a Fidelity Investments review of 11 million accounts it manages. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index tumbled 46 percent in that period. The average balance of the Fidelity accounts recovered to $60,700 as of last Sept. 30 as the stock market rebounded.
There is "a tremendous amount of interest in the White House" in retirement-security initiatives, Borzi, who heads the Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration, said in an interview.
In addition to annuities, the inquiry will cover other approaches to guaranteeing income, including longevity insurance that would provide an income stream for retirees living beyond a certain age, she said.
"There's been a fair amount of discussion in the literature taking the view that perhaps there ought to be more lifetime income," Iwry, a senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, said in an interview.
Lump Sums
"The question is how to encourage it, and whether the government can and should be helpful in that regard," Iwry said.
Page 1 2 3 Nextrams Reprints Terms of Use Disclaimer Privacy Notice Ethics Code Contact Us Site Map Press Room
©2009 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved.
Retiree Annuities May Be Promoted by Obama Aides
The government is looking at ways to promote the conversion of 401(k)s and IRAs into steady payment streams after a significant decline in plan balances
By Theo Francis
(Bloomberg) — The Obama administration is weighing how the government can encourage workers to turn their savings into guaranteed income streams following a collapse in retiree accounts when the stock market plunged.
The U.S. Treasury and Labor Departments will ask for public comment as soon as next week on ways to promote the conversion of 401(k) savings and Individual Retirement Accounts into annuities or other steady payment streams, according to Assistant Labor Secretary Phyllis C. Borzi and Deputy Assistant Treasury Secretary Mark Iwry, who are spearheading the effort.
Annuities generally guarantee income until the retiree's death, and often that of a surviving spouse as well. They are designed to protect against the risk that retirees outlive their savings, a danger made clear by market losses suffered by older Americans over the last year, David Certner, legislative counsel for AARP, said in an interview.
"There's a real desire on a lot of people's parts to try to encourage something other than just rolling over a lump sum, to make sure this money will actually last a lifetime," said Certner, legislative counsel for Washington-based AARP, the biggest U.S. advocacy group for retirees.
Promoting annuities may benefit companies that provide them through employers, including ING Groep NV (INGA:NA) and Prudential Financial Inc. (PRU), or sell them directly to individuals, such as American International Group Inc. (AIG), the insurer that has received $182.3 billion in government aid.
Balances Fall
The average 401(k) fund balance dropped 31 percent to $47,500 at the end of March 2009 from $69,200 at the end of 2007, according to a Fidelity Investments review of 11 million accounts it manages. The Standard & Poor's 500 Index tumbled 46 percent in that period. The average balance of the Fidelity accounts recovered to $60,700 as of last Sept. 30 as the stock market rebounded.
There is "a tremendous amount of interest in the White House" in retirement-security initiatives, Borzi, who heads the Labor Department's Employee Benefits Security Administration, said in an interview.
In addition to annuities, the inquiry will cover other approaches to guaranteeing income, including longevity insurance that would provide an income stream for retirees living beyond a certain age, she said.
"There's been a fair amount of discussion in the literature taking the view that perhaps there ought to be more lifetime income," Iwry, a senior adviser to Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, said in an interview.
Lump Sums
"The question is how to encourage it, and whether the government can and should be helpful in that regard," Iwry said.
Page 1 2 3 Nextrams Reprints Terms of Use Disclaimer Privacy Notice Ethics Code Contact Us Site Map Press Room
©2009 Bloomberg L.P. All Rights Reserved.
grandma
Well-known member
They are Jerks! If the accumulative amt in the plans are down, they might stop to ask `why' !! And since they are declaring recovery is on its way, then I suggest they wait until then to see if people are contributing more into their plans then. Is this the `finishing straw' since they read our comments that maybe abscounding from the funds is in the back of our minds, & they want to be sure to get it grabbed before we get it tucked away?
And if the CEO's of these corporations can take unreal bonuses, salaries, maybe what the Theys need to do, is (since they are into the control business) is to have that money put INTO the 401s, instead of shutting down their contributions.
I hope there are some Politcal Suspense writers out there, they could make a mint on all my suspicions of conspiracies galore !!!
And if the CEO's of these corporations can take unreal bonuses, salaries, maybe what the Theys need to do, is (since they are into the control business) is to have that money put INTO the 401s, instead of shutting down their contributions.
I hope there are some Politcal Suspense writers out there, they could make a mint on all my suspicions of conspiracies galore !!!
merlin
Member
Supreme Court ruling a landmark for corporate political cash
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.
The 5-4 ruling split the high court along conservative and liberal lines. It was a defeat for the Obama administration and supporters of campaign finance laws who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system.
The ruling will transform the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in this year's congressional election and the 2012 presidential contest.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights.
"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote.
In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."
The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.
"This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar, a group that supports campaign finance limits.
LABOR UNIONS TOO
In the 2008 election cycle, nearly $6 billion was spent on all federal campaigns, including more than $1 billion from corporate political action committees, trade associations, executives and lobbyists.
The ruling will almost certainly allow labor unions to spend more freely in political campaigns also and it posed a threat to similar limits that had been imposed in about half of the country's 50 states.
The top court struck down the part of the federal law that restricted broadcast advertisements for or against political candidates right before elections that are paid for by corporations, labor unions and advocacy groups.
The 2002 campaign finance law at issue was named after Senator John McCain, the unsuccessful Republican presidential nominee in 2008, and Democratic Senator Russell Feingold.
The justices appeared at a special Thursday session to summarize the ruling and issued a total of five separate opinions exceeding 175 pages.
The decision was a victory for a conservative advocacy group's challenge to the campaign finance law as part of its efforts to broadcast and promote a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She later became President Barack Obama's secretary of state.
The Obama administration defended the law and its restrictions on election-related spending by corporations, unions and interest groups. It said corporations for more than 100 years have been subject to special limits on spending in federal political campaign.
The court's conservative majority, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees, previously voted to limit or strike down parts of the law designed to regulate the role of money in politics and prevent corruption.
The court's four liberals, including its newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by Obama, dissented. Yahoo!Updates
Copyright © 2010 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Now isn't this a bite in the butt. Does anyone in Washington D.C. work for the people in this nation?
- Ema
Reuters – Supreme Court Justices gather for an official picture at the Supreme Court, September 29, 2009. REUTERS/Jim …
- Ema
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Corporations can spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday in a landmark decision that allows massive sums to be spent to influence future elections.
The 5-4 ruling split the high court along conservative and liberal lines. It was a defeat for the Obama administration and supporters of campaign finance laws who said that ending the limits would unleash a flood of corporate money into the political system.
The ruling will transform the political landscape and the rules on how money can be spent in this year's congressional election and the 2012 presidential contest.
Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy said the limits violated constitutional free-speech rights.
"We find no basis for the proposition that, in the context of political speech, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers," he wrote.
In his sharply worded dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote, "The court's ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the nation."
The justices overturned Supreme Court precedents from 2003 and 1990 that upheld federal and state limits on independent expenditures by corporate treasuries to support or oppose candidates.
"This decision allows Wall Street to tap its vast corporate profits to drown out the voice of the public in our democracy," said Common Cause President Bob Edgar, a group that supports campaign finance limits.
LABOR UNIONS TOO
In the 2008 election cycle, nearly $6 billion was spent on all federal campaigns, including more than $1 billion from corporate political action committees, trade associations, executives and lobbyists.
The ruling will almost certainly allow labor unions to spend more freely in political campaigns also and it posed a threat to similar limits that had been imposed in about half of the country's 50 states.
The top court struck down the part of the federal law that restricted broadcast advertisements for or against political candidates right before elections that are paid for by corporations, labor unions and advocacy groups.
The 2002 campaign finance law at issue was named after Senator John McCain, the unsuccessful Republican presidential nominee in 2008, and Democratic Senator Russell Feingold.
The justices appeared at a special Thursday session to summarize the ruling and issued a total of five separate opinions exceeding 175 pages.
The decision was a victory for a conservative advocacy group's challenge to the campaign finance law as part of its efforts to broadcast and promote a 2008 movie critical of then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton. She later became President Barack Obama's secretary of state.
The Obama administration defended the law and its restrictions on election-related spending by corporations, unions and interest groups. It said corporations for more than 100 years have been subject to special limits on spending in federal political campaign.
The court's conservative majority, with the addition of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justice Samuel Alito, both Bush appointees, previously voted to limit or strike down parts of the law designed to regulate the role of money in politics and prevent corruption.
The court's four liberals, including its newest member, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was appointed by Obama, dissented. Yahoo!Updates
Copyright © 2010 Reuters Limited. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the content, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.
Copyright © 2010 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Now isn't this a bite in the butt. Does anyone in Washington D.C. work for the people in this nation?
merlin
Member
Well I can't drink beer anymore. Doctor says I must loose the tire around my waist. Walked into his office and he took my blood sugar count and my count was 1035. He said that I should have been in a coma. No way should have walking any where. Well now I'm walking 2 miles a day and set a goal at 10 miles. Working out on my wii wii. Placed the bike rack on the exployer and dusted my twelve speed off. It is time to fly. So far lost 16lbs. Need to loose 36 more. Thats what I get for giving up letter carrier craft to a desk. Never had a weight problem. It like some overnight put helium in my stomach. The wife has her foot in my a##. Told me, I better not die or she would kill me for leaving her with the crazy kids. I do miss the beer though. Maybe I try tequila, Just kidding.
It a good thing I'm retired. Plenty of time to workout. I was thinking of that insanity workout disk. I got to talk to Frixxxx and see how it working for him.
It a good thing I'm retired. Plenty of time to workout. I was thinking of that insanity workout disk. I got to talk to Frixxxx and see how it working for him.
I'm using Weight Watchers and it work until I get home to the wife and we are on different plans.:blink:I was thinking of that insanity workout disk. /QUOTE]
Are you talking about the P90 program? My son and daughter-in-law are doing that program and it is a killer. Verrry effective however. He has lost 18 lbs. in the first 30 days.
pigeonguy
Member
No Insanity is another version of P90X. Not sure if same company or not.
Would like to try P90X/Insanity except asthma just won't let me crank it up that high and sustain.
Lost 64 pounds after bypass but would like to drop another 40.
Older you get the harder it is with slowdown in metabolism.
Mark
Would like to try P90X/Insanity except asthma just won't let me crank it up that high and sustain.
Lost 64 pounds after bypass but would like to drop another 40.
Older you get the harder it is with slowdown in metabolism.
Mark
Blindman
Member
Well I can't drink beer anymore. Doctor says I must loose the tire around my waist. Walked into his office and he took my blood sugar count and my count was 1035. He said that I should have been in a coma. No way should have walking any where. Well now I'm walking 2 miles a day and set a goal at 10 miles. Working out on my wii wii. Placed the bike rack on the exployer and dusted my twelve speed off. It is time to fly. So far lost 16lbs. Need to loose 36 more. Thats what I get for giving up letter carrier craft to a desk. Never had a weight problem. It like some overnight put helium in my stomach. The wife has her foot in my a##. Told me, I better not die or she would kill me for leaving her with the crazy kids. I do miss the beer though. Maybe I try tequila, Just kidding.
Merlin, I have to say that mad me laugh. I always like to read posts to get opinions on the markets, but I also like to get a chuckle as well. Good for the Soul. Keep it up brother! I'm currently training for the OKC Memorial this month. (Only the half) Not lucky enough to be retired yet, don't even want to think about how much time I got left, that definitely won't make me chuckle!! No, I am very blessed man, Like I said keep up the good work!
Good Luck to Everyone in the markets!!
Blindman
Birchtree
Well-known member
I was a five mile runner from age 20 through age 45 - every darn day. Now that's a lot of hard work. I asked a cardiologist once if he thought that work would have any accumulative health effects in older age - he didn't think so. Recently I read a blurb in TWSJ from another researcher cardiologist and he stated if you were clean in middle age from doing strenous exercise you would be protected from problems with your heart well into your grey years - so far I'm holding the line against CAD. So from my perspective life style does make a difference.
anthony
Member
I'm going to poke my nose in on this sidebar ...
1. You don't have to run 5 miles a day to be in phenomenal condition without breaking every joint and ligment in your body ... http://www.crossfitendurance.com/, http://www.crossfit.com/
2. Everything that anyone (especially media and the multi-billion dollar shoe companies) ever taught you about running is wrong ... http://www.posetech.com/pose_method/
I'll hit 20 years of service this month and I can lift more, jump higher, and run faster now than I did leaving Parris Island at 18.
Two buddies and I are running the 35th Marine Corps Marathon in October and I won't run more than 6 miles in one day between now and then (and even that will be a rarity).
Just my two cents. Good luck with whatever program you follow though. At least you are on a program. That's more than most.
1. You don't have to run 5 miles a day to be in phenomenal condition without breaking every joint and ligment in your body ... http://www.crossfitendurance.com/, http://www.crossfit.com/
2. Everything that anyone (especially media and the multi-billion dollar shoe companies) ever taught you about running is wrong ... http://www.posetech.com/pose_method/
I'll hit 20 years of service this month and I can lift more, jump higher, and run faster now than I did leaving Parris Island at 18.
Two buddies and I are running the 35th Marine Corps Marathon in October and I won't run more than 6 miles in one day between now and then (and even that will be a rarity).
Just my two cents. Good luck with whatever program you follow though. At least you are on a program. That's more than most.
Similar threads
