Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Dracula" data-source="post: 3798107" data-attributes="member: 42691">I&#039;m not taking a side in your little feud here, but your claim that your 401k won&#039;t ever run the risk of falling below 80% is fundamentally false. Since your 401k is invested into various funds, you could lose far more than 80%. If you have $500,000 in your 401k and your investments lost 50% in a market crash, you&#039;re at $250,000. Do the math, Brother.These 401k&#039;s have been sold as some sort of panacea to us by financial wizards, under the guise that the stock market, historically, returns a yearly average yield somewhere around 7%. Until it doesn&#039;t. Like, say, 2008. I don&#039;t know about you, but I lost almost 30% of my 401k balance in 2008.Good thing I didn&#039;t retire that year.401k&#039;s sound great, until you factor in fees, market fluctuations and their main purpose, to put the risk on the employee, instead of the employer.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Dracula, post: 3798107, member: 42691"] I'm not taking a side in your little feud here, but your claim that your 401k won't ever run the risk of falling below 80% is fundamentally false. Since your 401k is invested into various funds, you could lose far more than 80%. If you have $500,000 in your 401k and your investments lost 50% in a market crash, you're at $250,000. Do the math, Brother. These 401k's have been sold as some sort of panacea to us by financial wizards, under the guise that the stock market, historically, returns a yearly average yield somewhere around 7%. Until it doesn't. Like, say, 2008. I don't know about you, but I lost almost 30% of my 401k balance in 2008. Good thing I didn't retire that year. 401k's sound great, until you factor in fees, market fluctuations and their main purpose, to put the risk on the employee, instead of the employer. [/QUOTE]

Verification