|
Post by whoswho on May 7, 2008 9:19:15 GMT -6
Here's an article from bankrate.com about purchasing I bonds for an IRA: www.thewhiz.com/brm/news/DrDon/20020307a.aspHe says "You can fund an IRA account with Series I savings bonds, but the organization that is acting as the trustee or custodian on the account has to accept savings bonds as investments in the account. "
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on May 7, 2008 7:53:22 GMT -6
I would classify myself as a non-expert as well, but your idea sounds VERY plausible to me. Apparently the simple savings bonds have been recognized as a good thing, and of course, any time something is a good thing, it will probably be taken away from us, LOL. I wonder what kind of limitations that foreign investors have? Can they purchase as much as they want?
I had the impression that IRA's could contain a variety of different investments. I think some people even purchase gold for their IRA. I would have thought it was possible to simply have savings bonds as well. But it might be gilding the lily, because you CAN simply purchase them as a "standalone" investment, there really is no need for them to be within an IRA. I don't think it is especially advantageous to do so.
So you've already switched over to a Treasury type fund, and you had to pay the 3%, but you did get your funds where you wanted them, so that's a positive.
I have never been sorry I purchased my EE bonds years ago, there have been times when they were doing better than all my other investments.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on May 7, 2008 7:25:58 GMT -6
Many of the doctors over here now are foreigners anyway.
Maybe it's not such a bad idea.
It would depend on the quality of healthcare you can get, where you are. Where I live, the majority of the doctors are quite mediocre, for all their enormous salaries. There are not very many truly good doctors.
When my mother broke her hip, the doctor who did her surgery did a poor job... and he has a reputation for doing a poor job, but he continues to work just the same. If I had the choice of letting someone from another country fix her, she might have actually gotten better medical care! He was very indifferent to her problems after the surgery, very satisfied with himself. She has never been the same since. Some of these doctors need a damn good downsizing, maybe it would take the wind out of their sails and they would start to take their doctoring more seriously, instead of being demi gods.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on May 7, 2008 7:14:53 GMT -6
Judes, I think you are more than right, we truly are in an economic depression. I think that it is more severe for some people than for others, but that was also true in the Great Depression, from stories I have been told by the older people. My dad told me that he went without a steady job for ten years before WWI. On the other hand, another elderly gentleman who worked on the railroad told me he never missed a day's work during that time. I don't know how much more severe conditions will have to become before the reality can no longer be denied.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on May 5, 2008 10:27:24 GMT -6
Another interesting read, too long for a copy and paste: www.hbs.edu/research/pdf/06-017.pdf"Savings Bonds have always served multiple objectives: funding the U. S. government, democratizing national financing, and enabling families to save. Increasingly, this last goal has been ignored. A series of efficiency measures introduced in 2003 make these bonds less attractive and less accessible to savers. Public policy should go in the opposite direction: U. S. savings bonds should be reinvigorated to help low and moderate income (LMI) families build assets."
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on May 5, 2008 10:21:27 GMT -6
This guy also questions the reason: www.bargaineering.com/articles/why-lower-the-savings-bond-limit-to-5000.htmlWhy Lower The Savings Bond Limit to $5,000? Last year, the Treasury Department limited the amount of Series I and Series EE Savings Bonds that a US Citizen could purchase in a single year to, effectively $20,000 (TreasuryDirect release). The limit had been $30,000 in paper certificates and $30,000 in electronic certificates for each the Series I and Series EE bonds, meaning you could feasibly purchase $120,000 in savings bonds ($30k electronic Series I, $30k paper Series I, $30k electronic Series EE & $30k paper Series EE) a year ago. The current limit not drops the total amount of savings bonds you can purchase to $20,000 a year (which is still a lot for most Americans).
Why? The stated reason was to “refocus the savings bond program on its original purpose of making these non-marketable Treasury securities available to individuals with relatively small sums to invest.” That is not achieved by lowering the maximum limit, that was achieved when TreasuryDirect allowed you to purchase electronic bonds as low as $25 each.
Another reason was that “Approximately 98 percent of all annual purchases of savings bonds by individuals are for $5,000 or less.” Again, that’s not a legitimate reason to lower the maximum limit. The “it won’t affect that many people” defense won’t work for a lot of things, I don’t see why it’s viable here.
I suppose you could make the argument that lowering the maximum will help those with smaller sums if there was a limited supply of US Savings Bonds. However, if you take a look at our growing debt and growing deficit, you’d be hard-pressed to make the argument that US debt is in short supply.
So why? I’m at a loss and I don’t understand it well enough to make much of an informed guess. I would’ve expected the US government to want to be indebted to its own citizens, rather than foreign interests, so perhaps there is something else going on? I tried searching online but didn’t find any editorials or other insights into why the rate was (really) lowered. Anyone have any thoughts?
Incidentally, the Treasury announced the new rates and the fixed portion of the Series I Savings bond dropped from 1.2% to 0.00%!
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Apr 24, 2008 13:32:26 GMT -6
What goes? From bankrate.com: "Keep in mind that the Treasury has severely trimmed the maximum savings bond purchase allowed per individual and per calendar year from the previous $30,000 in paper bonds and $30,000 purchased electronically through www.TreasuryDirect.gov to $5,000 in paper and $5,000 electronically."Does anybody here know WHY they would restrict the purchase like this?
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Apr 10, 2008 13:33:25 GMT -6
Lasher, I sat down and figured up exactly where I am in my retirement savings, and I am happy to report that it is not too terribly bad.
It is not nearly as high as your recommendation (you said $1,000,000 for a couple, so I am assuming $500,000 for a single) but it is not terribly in the ghetto either. I think it was so confusing because it was so spread out over various 401k's, CD's, and other savings. I have completely abandoned my dreams of retiring at my MRA + 10 though (in two years). After studying all the options presented in our retirement seminar, I think it would be best to work at least another seven years to 62.
Thank you so much for your moral support, I feel that it helped me a great deal to get more into positive focus.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Apr 2, 2008 7:38:39 GMT -6
I think the whole concept of retirement hinges on HOW you want to retire.
If you can accept a much lower standard of living cheerfully, what exactly would there be to stop you? I don't have a lot of sympathy for those who have "sailing around the Caribbean" at the top of their wish list. They could fall down miles financially and still not be hurt. Many people's big dream is just the chance to putter around in their own back yard. I DO have sympathy for people who have had their benefits cut back so severely that retirement is no longer an option.
There has been way too little information and education, way too late, for many older employees. For the FIRST time (and I am 54) I am reading in my employer's retirement planning handbook, "TSP WILL make up the largest portion of your total retirement." Thanks for making it clear to me after 31 years have already passed, this is just such an invaluable tidbit of help.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Apr 2, 2008 7:14:24 GMT -6
Well, I have a Federal job, and in our retirement planning benefits overview, it says, "At age 65 enrollment in Medicare is optional if you are not eligible for Social Security (which of course I am, having paid into it all my working years). If enrolled, it (Medicare) becomes your primary and your FEHB plan becomes your secondary provider."
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Apr 2, 2008 6:57:47 GMT -6
You can include me in that statistic, I still feel clueless. I have no trust in the stock market, or financial advisers at all, so that is two whammies against me, which probably makes it harder for me to learn.
Don't feel alone. When they send those brochures in the mail... you know, the ones describing all the fine details of the mutual fund I'm invested in? I throw them in the trash. It doesn't make any sense to me anyway, LOL. (Doesn't it feel GOOD to admit you're a dummy???) No really, I HAVE tried to sit down and read them, and it just totally frustrates me. It's just page after page of stuff that I guess is supposed to have significance to me, and I feel like it's just insurmountable, a mountain.
No, I DON'T trust anybody, I truly do not. My old company still has one of my 401k's through Fidelity, and they send me offers to help me. I can't. My distrust and disrespect for them is so profound that I just can not overcome it. I figure there must be something in it for them or they wouldn't reach out to me. So I throw that in the trash too.
But you gotta trust SOMEBODY, I guess.
I feel so bad for the next generation of young people I do too. They will never know what it feels like to have a REAL career.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Apr 1, 2008 7:31:01 GMT -6
I'm living it, so whenever Bush and company got on CNN saying all is well, I knew he was lying, as did so many others. I don't think the cat's going back into the bag anytime soon.
That is exactly my experience Judes. Neither have I ever had a warm fuzzy feeling of trust for my old company, as far back as when I was hired there in the early 70's. I think a lot of people intuitively know there is something wrong, but they don't have enough technical knowledge to act in their own interests (and it becomes even more confusing when they see others who are seemingly very trustful of the company). When we first got a full blown 401k, I saw degreed engineers who really didn't have a clue about what kind of investments to choose.
When I left the company, there was no one to help me. There were BIG decisions to make, and really no one to give positive direction. I got a copy of a Kiplinger's book and gave myself a crash course in 401k rollovers. And yes, I rolled it ALL over to a 401k. Like Lasher, I [glow=red,2,300] like a clean break from the people who really don't have a good track record of watching out for your interests. [/glow]
Judes, if you were to QUIT your job today.... wouldn't they HAVE to give you ALL the money that is due to you? Maybe that would be better than waiting for the ax to fall?
It sounds like your situation is nearly identical to mine, I live in an economically challenged locale as well. I would NEVER have quit, because really there was nothing for me to go to if I did. The only difference between me and you is that you have a husband and I am on my own. The fact that you do have a mate is invaluable, it means that you have some kind of safety net, economically and psychologically.
If I had a question for Lasher, I think it would be about investments. Does EVERYTHING in mutual funds stink now? Or am I just making lousy choices?
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Mar 24, 2008 7:57:02 GMT -6
previous post was from WhosWho, thought I was logged in, but was not
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Mar 21, 2008 9:39:02 GMT -6
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are a good thing for employees. So are 401(k)s. They are both good supplements to, but not an acceptable substitute for, traditional Defined Benefit Pension Plans (DBPPs) that have become less and less common.
Interesting that you had BOTH a defined benefit plan AND an ESOP.
Our defined benefit plan was totally replaced by an ESOP, it was never at any time a "supplement". One day we had a tradional pension, the next day it was gone with the wind. It was never up for a vote. We were never consulted until it was a done deal.
They have the ESOP only to this very day, and the company has gone through so many changes that it is almost impossible to determine just what they do anymore. Wall Street has never figured out that they no longer own their biggest cash cow.
And so it would usually be wrong to characterize ESOPs as vehicles for "retirement savings". And yet that is just exactly what they ARE doing. That IS *the* retirement. If it isn't, then they should stop telling us that it is!!
They need to be much more straightforward and honest about what WILL create a retirement for us. I know *I* never had a REALLY clear understanding of what it entailed for YEARS. And I think there are a heck of a lot of people who are even more in the fog than me. How can you plan realistically if you are NEVER given a clear picture of what it is that you need to do?
We went straight from the DBP ("Don't worry about your retirement, WE are taking care of that, and it will be a good one") to "Oops, we're sorry, we had to use your pension money to buy back the company from a hostile takeover.... but we'll pay you back over 10 years. Oh by the way, we will be paying you back in company stock."
Now I am FAR from the most educated person in the world, but this looks like it has many holes in it to me.
I just think we are SEVERELY lacking in regulation of something that is critically important, and that the poorest and dumbest among us has as much right to PROTECTION as the biggest wig in the company.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Mar 21, 2008 7:35:22 GMT -6
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are a good thing for employees
So are you a troll just trying to tweak my nose? I don't know how you could possibly reach that conclusion, no matter from what warped angle you look at it.
Do you personally HAVE an ESOP?
It puts the employee in a totally vulnerable position, first because it is never up for a vote whether they will participate or not. "My way or the highway," says the company.
Secondly, the employee can not touch it under any circumstances whatsoever, even when the value of the stock is rapidly plunging from $200 a share to $2 a share. Unlike a 401k, you can't even move it to another investment. Your choices are, company stock, or, company stock.
The retirement savings you thought you had could literally vaporize overnight.
Unless of course the employee could quit the company before the value started to drop, and roll their account over to a 401k somewhere, and sell the stock from there. And what is the likelihood of that happening? That an ordinary employee would even have that sort of inside knowledge? Zero to less than zero, unless he had a crystal ball or knew how to read tea leaves.
So the employee is nothing but a sitting duck in a tsunami. Heck, he would have been money ahead, had he just put the funds in the worst passbook savings account in town.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Mar 20, 2008 9:03:56 GMT -6
What we are NOT seeing in all this flurry of reporting is the fate of the 17000 employees whose retirement funds plummeted to 10% of value. It is sad when the big dogs are walking away with the big bucks, and others are getting their lives ruined. From reading around the blogs, they are saying that Bear Sterns employees had an ESOP plan. dealbook.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/17/could-bear-stearns-do-better/"What happens to the folks who put a majority of their earnings into the Bear ESOP plan?" According to my understanding, this is NOT just some kind of a thrift plan we are talking about, where you would have an option of whether you would participate at all, or your choice of a variety of investments. We had this same kind of a retirement account at my old employer, and what it was.... was a replacement of a traditional pension plan (defined benefit plan) with a pension plan consisting 100% of company stock. (Can you say "Enron"?) I wonder WHY ESOPs are still legal in this country? ? There have been so many wipeouts (Enron, United Airlines). But, it looks like it WILL be litigated: berenslaw.com/BSC.aspxquote: "DENVER, CO, March 17, 2008 -- Dyer & Berens LLP announced today that it is investigating potential legal claims against The Bear Stearns Companies Inc. ("Bear Stearns") (NYSE: BSC) and others concerning whether the administrators of the Bear Stearns Employee Stock Ownership Plan (the "Plan") have failed to manage Plan assets prudently and invested in BSC stock when it was no longer an appropriate investment for the participants’ retirement savings. The attorneys at Dyer & Berens, LLP believe Plan participants may have legal claims against Bear Stearns, Plan administrators and others for their breaches of fiduciary duties and violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 ("ERISA")."
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Dec 4, 2007 6:32:58 GMT -6
But is she really a widow? I've never been 100% convinced that Ken Lay didn't just slip off to South America or someplace he could live incognito.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Dec 3, 2007 8:21:42 GMT -6
www.kiplinger.com/apnews/XmlStoryResult.php?storyid=503789"The widow of Enron Corp. founder Kenneth Lay says her husband didn't commit any crimes, according to court documents filed Friday in the ongoing effort by the federal government to seize nearly $13 million in assets from his estate. Linda Lay's claims were in response to an October 2006 civil action filed by federal prosecutors after her husband's convictions for his role in Enron's collapse were vacated following his death last year. The civil action was the only way federal authorities could try to seize $12.7 million in assets they claim were "proceeds of the fraud proven in the criminal case against Lay." Kenneth Lay had been convicted in May 2006 of 10 counts of fraud, conspiracy and lying to banks in two separate cases. But his convictions were vacated because of his July 2006 death from heart disease. Prosecutors are looking to take three things: $2.5 million of the value of the couple's condominium in one of Houston's most exclusive high-rises; $10.2 million from a partnership named for both the Lays; and nearly $23,000 in a bank account. Linda Lay's response to the civil action comes after U.S. District Judge Ewing Werlein on Nov. 14 rejected a request from her to halt the government's bid for the money. In the response, Linda Lay "denies any criminal activity on the part of Kenneth L. Lay, including his alleged participation in securities, fraud, wire fraud, conspiracy or money laundering." She also denied that any of the property or assets officials are trying to seize was involved in money laundering or acquired through criminal conduct. Jaclyn Lesch, a Justice Department spokeswoman, declined to comment on Linda Lay's claims. Both Linda Lay and prosecutors have asked for a jury trial, which has not been scheduled. Enron, once the nation's seventh-largest company, crumbled into bankruptcy proceedings in December 2001 when years of accounting tricks could no longer hide billions in debt or make failing ventures appear profitable. Enron's collapse wiped out thousands of jobs, more than $60 billion in market value and more than $2 billion in pension plans."
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Oct 12, 2007 5:54:54 GMT -6
Bad news! I probably ingest at least half of my lipstick every day before lunch. I wonder whether these products are now being manufactured in the US, or are foreign imports?
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Nov 16, 2007 7:38:57 GMT -6
See, nobody ever questioned anything in that company.
I felt like a total rebel when I asked that question. Everybody else was like "eyes straight ahead, don't say nothing". I never understood that.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Nov 16, 2007 7:34:08 GMT -6
We weren't informed of anything until it was a done deal.
All I knew was that there was a hostile takeover attempt by the Belzberg brothers, and that they took our the money in our defined benefit plan and bought back the company. We were never asked anything, or told anything.
Later they had a "town hall" meeting where you could ask anything you wanted, anonymously, by submitting a written question. I asked them why they did this without our knowledge and consent, and they went BALLISTIC on that question. They said it wasn't our money.
And yes, it was replaced with a thing called "Lesop", leveraged employee stock ownership plan. It is ALL, 100%, company stock, and you cannot touch it. At least until you retire.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Nov 15, 2007 8:52:03 GMT -6
OK, how do you like this for confusing information?
For a few years, my old company (from whence I was downsized after 23 years) sent us a document in the mail called “Your Personal Statement Of Benefits”. The first part showed hospital and medical benefits, sickness and disability benefits, and survivor’s benefits.
The second part was called “Your Future Independence”. It states: “You can retire on your normal retirement date, August 1, 2018 at age 65 and be eligible for the following monthly benefits: $1375 your projected age 65 retirement plan income payable for your lifetime only** $ 794 your estimated primary Social Security benefit. $2169 Total monthly benefit
In order for you to duplicate your retirement plan income at normal retirement date, you would have to accumulate $192,900.
When you retire, you will receive the shares in your Paysop account, which had a value of $2,899.28 as of 6/30/88. You will also receive $3839.13 which represents the value of 50% of the shares in your Lesop account of 6/30/88.”
Then, it scrolls down to a section called “Annual Value Added To Your Income” Here, it lists all the medical and disability benefits, PLUS “Thrift Plan” and “Retirement Plan”, “PAYSOP” and “LESOP”.
What is so odd about this?
Because we didn’t HAVE a retirement plan.
The company had an attempted hostile takeover, and THEY TOOK OUR RETIREMENT MONEY AND BOUGHT BACK THE COMPANY. The old retirement plan no longer existed. They promised to pay us back the money taken from the plan, over a period of ten years, hence the “Paysop” arrived as a very small check in the mail every so often. The Lesop was a NEW plan replacing the old plan, that consisted entirely of company stock. Can you say, “Enron”? And…..They still have it!!!!!
By reading all this information, I honestly didn’t even pick up on it for several years that I no longer HAD a defined benefit plan. And I thought I HAD a retirement income “for my LIFETIME”.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Nov 7, 2007 8:42:07 GMT -6
What disturbs me is that many middle aged workers operated for years under the assumption that such plans would be in place at the time of their retirements.
That is YEARS of lost planning time that simply may not be recoverable.
The rules of the game are changed in the middle of the game... or near the end of the game. And then they wonder WHY so many boomers are unprepared for retirement??? We're the victims of kind of a bait and switch, if you ask me.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Jul 27, 2007 6:44:09 GMT -6
My dad served in Vietnam and NOTHING HAS CHANGED.
Exactly.
The only difference now is, people are so deeply ashamed of how Vietnam vets were treated when they returned, that they are going overboard to let today's troops know they support them.
In a sense, I think this is actually a hindrance. They are so guilt tripped by the past, that they won't get this thing by the ears and STOP it. The guilt has been used as a red herring across the path of a war that should never have happened.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Mar 11, 2008 7:38:54 GMT -6
I think mine is going in the bank. Gas prices are eating me alive, the most this money will do is to patch the existing cracks in the walls of my finances.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Jan 10, 2008 11:42:35 GMT -6
'Since there are so few jobs for university graduates, how is "education the answer"?'
High five, guy! I've been saying this for ages, but nobody listens to me cuz I'm a "dumb" woman.
I hear the argument over and over. We must educate ourselves better, it is our own shortcomings that have put us where we are.
I do not buy that. I DID educate myself, and it did NOT stop me from losing my job. Furthermore, LESS qualified people were assigned my old work, and I'm very tickled to say, they did a wretched job of it. AND... they got paid for it!
I feel sorry for the youth of today.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Nov 27, 2007 7:51:01 GMT -6
I quit buying them for the last few years anyway. I don't like them any more. They seem to have a rubbery texture and an odd taste that I don't really like. I don't buy many commercial candy bars really, it's such a gip. If I really crave chocolate, I bake a pan of brownies or a cake.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Nov 27, 2007 7:56:17 GMT -6
Never shop there and never miss them.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Oct 9, 2007 11:49:31 GMT -6
Maytag is NOT the old reliable company it was, as I found out the hard way. I bought a refridgerator NEW for $1100 five years ago. Before the warranty had expired this year, I had to have it service three times for the compressor and related problems. After reading about Maytag refridgerators in consumeraffairs.com, my problems were identical to a great many other people's. I am greatly condensing my story so I will not take up too much of your time, but this is a soapbox I could stand on for a long time.
"May" is out in the garage now. I don't have the nerve to plug her in again, because she "may" or "may not" be working, and I am too exhausted to find out. I lost every bite of food I owned three times, and my house insurance did not reimburse me.
|
|
|
Post by whoswho on Aug 16, 2007 6:57:47 GMT -6
All nations on this planet have policies to protect domestic jobs from outsourcing.
All except one--the United States.
And THAT is why life has become hell on earth in our beloved country.
|
|