From: "Glenn Meadows" 

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