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.

Non-Tech : The Enron Scandal - Unmoderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (487)	1/19/2002 5:40:33 PM
From: MulhollandDrive	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3602

>>I'm not one for creating laws and more tape but if the people running these plans can't get people to diversify then perhaps a law could force them to. << I agree with you on this. There should be a limitation on the allocation percentage. The reason it isn't pointed out by the plan people under current law is they will have a legal liability if they give "investment advice" assuming a shareholder is inclined to sue. Strictly CYA, and can you blame them in this litigious environment?

To: Oral Roberts who wrote (487)	1/19/2002 6:01:46 PM
From: Ish	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3602

<<I'm not one for creating laws and more tape but if the people running these plans can't get people to diversify then perhaps a law could force them to.>> I've read where Enron had 20 different plans for the 401s. Most employees went for the matching plan with ENE stock. Back in the Clinton era that looked like a lay up. The meltdown came when they reported a $368 million dollar loss. PG&E and India both owe them over $1 billion each. Do the math. If they could have collected just the California debt this thread wouldn't be on SI.