From: "Mark" 

Oh, I wasn't clear, I understand that completely, I've looked it up many
times and run scenarios over a lot of different time periods and mixes of
investment classes. I'm just giving the pessimists their due, by
acknowledging that it's impossible to give them a guarantee of that in the
future. I'm with you, I have no reason to believe it's "going to be
different" this time. 

"Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
news:420a590c{at}w3.nls.net...
>I think if you take any 10 year sliding window, you'll find that from the
>depression forward, even including the recent bust, that you will see 10%
>easily.
>
> --
>
> Glenn M.
> "Mark"  wrote in message
news:420a52f0{at}w3.nls.net...
>> Yes, that was what I was saying, that if all you've got is the ESOP at
>> work then you should be doing an IRA as well so you have that
>> diversification. On that 10% return, I do agree with the pessimists to a
>> degree, in that there is no guarantee of future returns, but I see no
>> reason not to expect positive returns over most or all 10 year periods
>> and certainly over 15 years.
>>
>> The actual argument is not whether 10% or more can be achieved, but what
>> the odds are of doing worse than 3% or so, so as to have a result that's
>> poorer than that of Social Security. I think those negative odds to be
>> essentially nonexistent and quite high that you'll do considerably
>> better.
>>
>> "Glenn Meadows"  wrote in message
>> news:420a4e84$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>> But it's a BAD investment for a 401k, IF the require all of the
>>> contributions to be in your own company stock.  Stock tanks, you're
>>> wiped out.
>>>
>>> Give me a choice of funds to pick from, let me set my own mix of
>>> risk/return.  I'll pick a mix of 3-4 different funds.  I think if you
>>> keep your investments to funds that have a minimum of a 5 year track
>>> record, and take those that show the steadiest return, you can keep your
>>> return in the 10%/year range.  Over just about any 10 year period,
>>> you'll see an average gain in the 10% range.
>>>
>>> --
>>>
>>> Glenn M.
>>> "Mark"  wrote in message
>>> news:420a491c$1{at}w3.nls.net...
>>>> Yes, ESOPs are a horse of another color altogether, I
think the premise
>>>> behind them is a good one -- it allows a company owner to
transfer that
>>>> ownership to the employees over a period of time with favorable tax
>>>> treatment, so it benefits him and the employees both.
However, though
>>>> it is included in the realm of "retirement"
plans, it's really more of
>>>> a transfer of ownership of an asset and offers zero
diversification and
>>>> practically nonexistent liquidity.
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Lucy"  wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.1c73f7edd3c5e3e2989688{at}news.barkto.com...
>>>>> In article ,
nomail{at}hotmail.com says...
>>>>>> We need more laws (or more enforcement) preventing
companies from
>>>>>> forcing
>>>>>> people to invest 100% of their 401(k) in company
stock, or rather,
>>>>>> making a
>>>>>> maximum level of any one stock in any 401(k) a low
one at that -- if
>>>>>> you
>>>>>> want to speculate (as is your right) and buy a
dot.com startup, you
>>>>>> can do
>>>>>> it outside your accounts that enjoy favorable tax
treatment from
>>>>>> state and
>>>>>> federal government.
>>>>>
>>>>> The loophole here is that the company may only offer
an ESOP and not a
>>>>> 401(k).
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>

--- BBBS/NT v4.01 Flag-5