From: "Glenn Meadows" 

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