Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : Gorilla and King Portfolio Candidates -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: substancep who wrote (49701)	1/5/2002 5:11:42 PM
From: Jurgis Bekepuris	Respond to of 54805

Bryan, I have a similar situation in my 401(k) and it is my belief - though possibly mistaken - that it is worthwhile to manage the account anyway. Therefore I do quite a lot of investigation into mutuals allowed there and change allocations between sectors and asset classes as needed. I don't know the breadth of your 401(k), so I don't know if it is applicable to you. I still believe that saying "I am G&K outside 401(k)" is a cop-out. The real meaning of it is that you do not believe that your G&Ks would beat the S&P500 with tax benefits and employer matches in 401(k). If you believed otherwise, you would contribute nothing to 401(k) and would invest the money into G&Ks. Jurgis - not that I blame you

To: substancep who wrote (49701)	1/6/2002 10:23:02 AM
From: alanrs	Respond to of 54805

I have the same problem, which is why 40% of my assets are in an investment contract. While I can move that money around, the choices are limited. The way I look at it, that money is like a big rock I can always count on which allows me to be much more aggressive in other areas. This year I've ended up with an additional 20% in cash that was a rental property. I am using that money to anchor an options strategy, although the stocks involved are the same old familiar names I always own-that's what I spend time following after all. This money is very discretionary and might go in the market or into a vacation property or who knows what else in the future. The remaining 40% (approx) is invested in almost exactly the same tech stocks as the previous year. I would actually feel better just giving the % of those with the caveat that I have sufficient assets in other things to allow me a riskier (?) investment approach. Most of the companies I own would be very familiar to everyone here.

To: substancep who wrote (49701)	1/6/2002 4:39:17 PM
From: diver913	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 54805

RE. Assumption about your employer and 401k Bryan, Please don't assume that your employer feels you aren't "worthy of the responsibility" to select individual stocks for your 401k. There's more to this decision than meets the eye. Our small company has offered a 401k plan for our employees for over 6 years, through T. Rowe Price. As one of the owners, I was eager to offer the opportunity for employees (and me!) to buy individual stocks. I detest the fees charged by actively-managed mutual funds, and I feel restricted with an index fund. But as one of the people who's held accountable for ensuring people are fully informed and educated, I backed off my initial enthusiasm after spending hours researching our options. Our conclusion: Too much risk. As owners, we're liable for employees' education about potential stock purchases. That means we'd have had to cover ourselves by paying a financial consultant to give advice, since none of us is a "certified" expert. The costs and risks were higher than we were willing to pay. This is just an overview of our rationale - don't want to take up too much space with this topic, but it's near and dear to my heart. I don't know what circumstances are at work in your company, but I know it wasn't a matter of not trusting our employees in our case, and it may not be in yours. It's worth asking your management to find out the reason for their current structure. Meredith