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.

Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (213533)	12/18/2004 3:07:15 PM
From: neolib	Respond to of 1575706

IIRC, when IRA's first came out, the private direction options were much more limited. These have evolved with time. There are a number of financial institutions (with good lawyers) that push the envelope in this regards today. Such things are owning title to property, or non-publicly traded stocks. Why can't you borrow against an IRA, (I think some 401K's do allow this)? Why can't you pay a market rate interest to your own retirement account? Owning rental property might also be a good thing. Most of these are excluded from IRA's primarily for reasons of risk, although it might have to do with industry lobbies one way or another.

To: neolib who wrote (213533)	12/18/2004 4:43:56 PM
From: Amy J	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 1575706

The 1k limit makes it useless. Did you understand Kruman's article about the management fees being 20% with privatization? He couldn't have meant it annually? 20% annually would be an obvious deal breaker. If they force you to make someone else manage your money, then I'm totally not interested in the proposal. It sounds like a common "lack of empowerment" proposal from another generation or two ago. Just reread it. Okay, he's not saying 20% annually. He's saying 20% of total revenues (which is still bad, when you consider today's fee is only 1% of total revenues.) He's saying if you use the UK system, then it cuts into a 4% ROR by 25%, resulting in a 3% ROR. That sounds like a fee that's 1% of assets, which is ridiculous when you consider you don't have to pay this with your IRAs when you purchase stocks. The commission fee is never 1% of total assets. Geez, Bush's proposal sounds like he's a thief yet again stealing from citizens for the benefit of some WS crooks. Forget that. If the proposal isn't like an IRA, where you control your own assets and thus have the option to pay a substantially lower fee than 1%, then I'm not for this plan. I was very much for the proposal, until I learned it's not an IRA. It's unconsciousable they would force citizens to hand over their money to WS to manage, rather than have the option to manage it yourself like an IRA. Given that it's only 1k per year, they should cut the strings and let people be empowered and manage it themselves. Bush's proposal is like something from the 70s when this country had no clue what empowerment was. Really a backwards proposal. I'd rather trust my money with the govt workers (who don't get paid commissions but a 75k salary) than some WS type that gets 200k for trading your money to their gain. Nor is it acceptable to be forced to pay 1% EVERY YEAR on your assets because you're forced to put it into an index fund. I see no reason why WS needs to steal my 1% of my assets every year, just for sitting in an index fund. Good grief. Okay, I'm against it now. How unfortunate it's not like an IRA. The plan stinks. If it were like an IRA, I'd be all for it. His proposal is way too 70s-ish. No empowerment. It'll turn off Gen X and Gen Ys. Regards, Amy J