401(k)s are a sham

[boutons_deux]

Karen Ferguson who was then, as she is now, the head of the Pension Rights Institute, warned in an op-ed published in the New York Times, “Rank-and-file workers have nothing to spare from their paychecks to put into a voluntary plan.”

But her voice, and that of other critics like economist Teresa Ghilarducci, who is now at the New School and described our upcoming retirement crisis as “an abyss” in 1994 congressional hearings, were drowned out by the money and power of the financial services industry, combined with their enablers in the personal finance media who proclaim even today that if we don’t have enough money set aside for retirement, it is all our own fault.

It’s not.

No one less than John Bogle, the founder of the Vanguard Group, might come forward to declare the American way of retirement savings “a train wreck” — but no matter. A train wreck for you and me is a gravy train for the financial services sector. And in the United States, they are the only group that matters.


Assume that you are an employee with 35 years to retirement and a current 401(k) balance of $25,000. If returns on your investment in your account over the next 35 years average 7 percent, and fees and expenses reduce your average returns by 0.5 percent, your account balance will grow to $227,000 at retirement, even if there are no further contributions to the account. If fees and expenses are 1.5 percent, however, your account balance will grow to only $163,000. The 1 percent difference in fees and expenses would reduce your account balance at retirement by 28 percent.

Salaries for the majority of us are, when translated into constant dollars, falling. The median household is earning eight percent less income adjusted for inflation today than it did in 2000. In the first quarter of 2013, wages fell by the greatest amount ever recorded.

At the same time, costs of things we can’t do without continue to rise. College costs have tripled since the early 1980s. The amount of money students are borrowing to pay tuition bills is skyrocketing, and all but doubled from 2005 to 2012 to $1.1 trillion. Healthcare costs have also soared. The New York Times recently reported the cost of giving birth has tripled since 1996. At the same time, patients are increasingly responsible for ever greater amounts of their medical expenses: credit reporting agency Transunion recently claimed an astonishing 22 percent rise in out-of-pocket hospital expenses over the past year.

People find it all but impossible to save in this environment. Our national savings rate hovered around 10 percent in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Today, it is a little more than 2 percent. Just take a look at what happened when companies began to adopt automatic enrollment plans for 401(k)s, that is, forcing people to opt-out of retirement plans instead of filling out papers to join up. Yes, the number of people contributing to deferred contribution accounts – but so too did what industry insiders call “the leakage” rate – that is, people borrowing against or withdrawing the monies in their accounts (and if that money isn’t repaid, the consumers withdrawing it need to pay penalties for accessing it). That number is now close to 25 percent.

The truth is this: the concept of a do-it-yourself retirement was a fraud. It was a fraud because to expect people to save up enough money to see themselves through a 20- or 30-year retirement was a dubious proposition in the best of circumstances. It was a fraud because it allowed hustlers in the financial sector to prey on ordinary people with little knowledge of sophisticated financial instruments and schemes. And it was a fraud because the mainstream media, which increasingly relies on the advertising dollars of the personal finance industry, sold expensive lies to an unsuspecting public. When combined with stagnating salaries, rising expenses and a stock market that did not perform like Rumpelstilskin and spin straw into gold, do-it-yourself retirement was all but guaranteed to lead future generations of Americans to a financially insecure old age. And so it has.

http://www.salon.com/2013/08/06/big_finance_lied_401ks_will_not_save_aging_america ns_partner/

... which is the real background behind why VRWC and financial industry wants to kill Social Security.

[101A]

Americans could save. They don't. They get Cable or Satellite TV, Iphones and any other convenience or luxury item they can "afford". They "buy" cars every few year they cannot afford, and live in constant debt. They are stupid, and expect not to be held accountable for it. Live within your means, whatever those means are - or don't ever expect to retire.

[2centsworth]

If that same employee saved $200/month with the match and tax deduction or Credit, they would add another $750,000 to their balance for $1,000,000 total using those same assumptions. The average worker can find $200/month in the budget but it would take some sacrificing of modern conveniences.

The problem is a lack of useful employee education.

[boutons_deux]

yes, always the fault of the Human-Americans, NEVER the fault of fraudulent, gouging Corporate-Americans

real household income has remained essentially flat since 1980

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/09/02/business/economy/02economix-growth-chart3/02economix-growth-chart3-blog480.jpg

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/09/mean-vs-median-income-growth.html

Human-Americans, the 99%, are receiving less and less of wealth creation, while the 1% gets the vast majority of it, aka, World Champion Inequality.

========

"In March 2009, RL Polk released a study conducted between 2007 to 2008 which indicated that the median age of passenger cars in operation in the US increased to 9.4 years,"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passenger_vehicles_in_the_United_States

internet and cell phones are effectively an indispensable now, and the service charges are MUCH MORE expensive than wirelines.

cable TV is horribly expensive because bundled packages where you have to pay for shitty channels you never watch.

yes, Americans have too much debt,

but the financial industry loves and encourages that debt and the Bs of unsolicited credit cards mailed out, because the cc interest and bank overdrafts are how they make their $100Bs in profits.

[boutons_deux]

porno GRAPHIC inequality

http://www.alternet.org/files/ownership_occupy_poster_zps7879609f.jpg

[InRareForm]

Americans could save. They don't. They get Cable or Satellite TV, Iphones and any other convenience or luxury item they can "afford". They "buy" cars every few year they cannot afford, and live in constant debt. They are stupid, and expect not to be held accountable for it. Live within your means, whatever those means are - or don't ever expect to retire.

Amen

[SnakeBoy]

yes, Americans have too much debt,

but the financial industry loves and encourages that debt and the Bs of unsolicited credit cards mailed out, because the cc interest and bank overdrafts are how they make their $100Bs in profits.

Just giving the people what they want.

[boutons_deux]

Just giving the people what they want.

yes, and 24/7 pervasive advertising knows how, scientifically, to create "want".

the financial sector, with plastic cards, payday loans, etc knows how sucker people into debt and the interest slavery.

[AntiChrist]

My "sham" is doing quite well

[Wild Cobra]

My "sham" is doing quite well

So is mine!

I will probably use mine to buy a house at one point and pay myself the interest.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

My "sham" is doing quite well

rofl same.

Being able to put 5% of my after-tax income at age 23 in a roth 401(k) plan while the company I work for matches it in a pre-tax traditional 401(k) plan gives me great tax diversification and makes it easier to retire at a young age.

The fact American wages are going down doesn't make 401(k) plans a fraud :lol

[AntiChrist]

rofl same.

Being able to put 5% of my after-tax income at age 23 in a roth 401(k) plan while the company I work for matches it in a pre-tax traditional 401(k) plan gives me great tax diversification and makes it easier to retire at a young age.

The fact American wages are going down doesn't make 401(k) plans a fraud :lol

My 401k now makes more money than I do.

[AntiChrist]

If you're in your early 20's and work for a company that matches, max that "sham" out. You won't be disappointed.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

If you're in your early 20's and work for a company that matches, max that "sham" out. You won't be disappointed.

If you work for a company that matches, idk why you wouldn't max that "sham" out regardless. It's free money :lol

[TeyshaBlue]

ditto...my 401k is like Sham-Wow.

[Wild Cobra]

Boutons.... What say you?

Those of us who normally disagree with each other, agree on this...

[scroteface]

http://i.imgur.com/OG1Yx.jpg

[Spurminator]

Assume that you are an employee with 35 years to retirement and a current 401(k) balance of $25,000. If returns on your investment in your account over the next 35 years average 7 percent, and fees and expenses reduce your average returns by 0.5 percent, your account balance will grow to $227,000 at retirement, even if there are no further contributions to the account. If fees and expenses are 1.5 percent, however, your account balance will grow to only $163,000.

So the basis of this article is that someone who contributes nothing to his 401(k) for 35 years will have a disappointing final balance?

[Jacob1983]

America is a business. Case closed.

[Sportcamper]

I think it is awesome that you guys are doing well with your 401k’s and savings plan..Most Americans work 40 years or more & retire broke relying on social security for their only income…All it takes is better education and a plan to reverse this trend…

As retirement guru Ed Slott says, “the government has a plan, their plan is to take your money, you need a plan as well”…

[pgardn]

yes, and 24/7 pervasive advertising knows how, scientifically, to create "want".

the financial sector, with plastic cards, payday loans, etc knows how sucker people into debt and the interest slavery.

Credit Card companies are horrible. But...

The question is how to save people from their own stupidity.

Jump on those introductory offers with 60,000 pts for airline miles. Look up how far those points will get you for a vacation. Get the card, read the fine print, use it for 3 months and cancel and cut the plastic up. Huge discount for trips WITHOUT working for a company that flies you everywhere. Same with Hotels. Pay your bills and use them right back.

[pgardn]

Kinda hypocritical people brag about their 401k and then call big companies giant parasitic organisms.

Feed that dog you hate...

[boutons_deux]

this is this kind of cheat/fraud-theft-enabling laws and reg the financial industry pays its REPUG Congressional accomplices/hit men





House leaders have quietly scheduled a vote on a bill to short-circuit protections for 401Ks and other retirement benefits.
Say No to HR 2374, the Fraudulently Misnamed “Retail Investor Protection Act.” (http://action.civilrights.org/site/R?i=WYd0OggZ-VWILeWESJg0wA)
The safeguards for such retirement plans have not been updated for almost 40 years. Originally, the rules were designed to protect managers of defined-benefit pensions from being exploited by unscrupulous advisors. But in today’s market many of us depend on 401K-type plans which we must manage ourselves. Unfortunately, current law allows many of the professionals to whom people must turn for investment advice to give self-serving recommendations that end up paying them more, while leaving retirees with less.
The Department of Labor, to its credit, is moving to update the rules so that all those giving advice on employee retirement savings actually have a legal obligation to act in a retiree's best interests. But industry opponents are determined to avoid this basic requirement. Their tactic is endless delay to kill any reform: first, they’re trying to keep the Department of Labor from even proposing new rules until the more industry-friendly Securities and Exchange Commission gets around to acting on related issues under its jurisdiction. On top of that, they’re putting additional barriers in the way of action by the SEC.
The net effect of this bill would be to give the financial industry a continued license to mislead. The consequences are huge: self-serving or just plain bad financial recommendations cost investors billions of dollars a year. Workers can easily lose 20 or 30 percent (http://action.civilrights.org/site/R?i=sjZRNY3QlYm6_NYMGy2CLA) of their retirement savings (a six-figure amount for many) by following the wrong counsel.
Tell Congress to Look Outfor Those Who Are Saving to Take Care of Their Families, Not for Unscrupulous Financial“Advisors.” (http://action.civilrights.org/site/R?i=2-n-ZdU1Ai2DUWoKWTfdeQ)
https://sm62.ms1.hctc.net/surgeweb




Sent by Americans for Financial Reform (http://action.civilrights.org/site/R?i=uQNszmnrg-ilAa0cvhQ_Kw)
1629 K Street NW, 10th Floor, Washington, DC 20006 - (202) 466-3311

==================================

H.R. 2374, the so-called "Retail Investor Protection Act." The practical effect of this bill would be to prevent the Department of Labor from raising the legal standards for advice applying to retirement savings, including workers with 401k plans.

HR 2374 would allow financial services companies to put their own interests ahead of their clients' interests by steering investors into inappropriate and high-fee investments.

Self-serving investment recommendations eat into the savings that Americans have worked hard to set aside in order to support a secure retirement or pay for their children's college educations. These are your constituents; these are the people you should be looking out for.

I strongly urge you to oppose this bill.

http://ourfinancialsecurity.org/

[boutons_deux]

CAP Calls for Improved Consumer Protections to Prevent Retirement Fees from Draining the Middle Class

Washington D.C. — The corrosive effects of high 401(k) fees are costing millions of Americans tens of thousands of dollars, forcing them to work years longer before retirement, according to a new report (http://www.americanprogress.org/issues/economy/report/2014/04/10/87503//) released today by the Center for American Progress. The report’s authors, CAP economic experts Jennifer Erickson and David Madland, propose a common-sense solution that won’t cost the government a dime but will protect consumers by improving retirement fee disclosure.

“Every day, Americans are investing hard-earned dollars in retirement accounts that aren’t working for them. Confusing and hidden fees are eating away at their savings, forcing them to work longer and save more,” said Jennifer Erickson (http://www.americanprogress.org/about/staff/erickson-jennifer/bio/). “It’s time to step up our nation’s consumer protections around retirement savings and ensure that workers and employers are armed with the information they need to make better choices about their investment options.”

“Better labeling of retirement fees is a no-brainer,” said David Madland (http://www.americanprogress.org/about/staff/madland-david/bio/). “At no cost to taxpayers, we can save workers a lot of money and make it much more likely that they can retire.”

While private-sector workers are increasingly reliant on 401(k)s and Individual Retirement Accounts, or IRAs, for their retirement, most do not know what these plans are costing them. In fact, one seemingly small decision—such as choosing a retirement fund with high or low fees—could have a huge impact on a worker’s ability to retire.

To understand how fees affect an individual, the report’s authors detail the following examples:



If a median-income worker saving 5 percent of her salary with a match from her employer selects a fund with fees of 1 percent versus a low-fee fund with a 0.25 percent fee, she will stand to lose approximately $100,000 over her lifetime. To make up the difference in her account by retirement, she would have to work more than three additional years.
?
If a two-person, median-income household invested in a slightly higher-than-average fund with 1.3 percent fees, these high fees will strip away one-quarter of a million dollarsfrom its retirement savings.
?
Over the course of her lifetime, a worker in a similar situation earning $75,000 at age 25 would pay more than $300,000 more in fees if she were invested in the fund with 1.3 percent fees, compared to if she were invested in the fund with 0.25 percent fees. In fact, to make up the shortfall in her account by the time she retires, her total contribution—including both employer and employee contributions—would have to increase by 25 percent. Even worse, since employer contributions generally top out at or below 5 percent, she would likely have to increase her individual contribution to her retirement from 5 percent of her salary to 7.5 percent—a jump of 50 percent in her personal retirement savings each year for her entire working life.
?

Many Americans are not aware of the fact that high fees are eating away at their retirement savings. But even if they were, tracking down the information to understand the fees on any given retirement account can be an unnecessarily complicated task to navigate. To help consumers make more-informed choices, Erickson and Madland call for all retirement funds to have a clear, understandable label that provides consumers with relevant, concise, and accessible information about fees. Improved fee disclosure could help individuals make better financial decisions—especially since data show that higher-cost funds do not necessarily perform better—and could also force a national conversation about how best to improve our retirement system.

http://www.americanprogress.org/press/release/2014/04/11/86763/release-cap-calls-for-improved-consumer-protections-to-prevent-retirement-fees-from-draining-the-middle-class/

[boutons_deux]

http://www.americanprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/401k-infographic.png

[Wild Cobra]

Fucking crybabies.

If you do some research on these funds and distinguish between returns, you will find that often --- not always... Higher fees pay for better fund managers and often perform far better.

Not a 100% rule, but just shop around.

If I pay a 1.5% fee for a fund that earns an long term average 10% annual rate, isn't that better than paying a 0.25% fee for a fund only returning 7% average?

[boutons_deux]

Fucking crybabies.

If you do some research on these funds and distinguish between returns, you will find that often --- not always... Higher fees pay for better fund managers and often perform far better.

Not a 100% rule, but just shop around.

If I pay a 1.5% fee for a fund that earns an long term average 10% annual rate, isn't that better than paying a 0.25% fee for a fund only returning 7% average?

link?

[boutons_deux]

which funds return 10% over 30 - 40 years, please.

[Wild Cobra]

which funds return 10% over 30 - 40 years, please.
I have two that have exceeded 10% over the long haul. FCNTX and FMAGX I got into both in 1998. They have served me well.

FCNTX

1 YR: 23.45%
3 YR: 14.25%
5 YR: 20.37%
10 YR: 9.85%
Life: 12.52% May 1967

FMAGX

1 YR: 26.50%
3 YR: 10.97%
5 YR: 18.62%
10 YR: 5.21%
Life: 16.32% May 1962

[Wild Cobra]

link?
Understand this:

Not a 100% rule, but just shop around.
Now I can cherry pick and find examples. Do you really want me to?

I'm only saying that you will find funds that have better managers and they get paychecks accordingly.

[Nbadan]

rofl same.

Being able to put 5% of my after-tax income at age 23 in a roth 401(k) plan while the company I work for matches it in a pre-tax traditional 401(k) plan gives me great tax diversification and makes it easier to retire at a young age.

The fact American wages are going down doesn't make 401(k) plans a fraud :lol

Not even sure how much money is enough money to even retire mid-50....relying on risks associated with investment income is the sham...to retire comfortably you need a life-time of income that will never decrease or run-out...that's why I recommend rental properties..

[Das Texan]

Not even sure how much money is enough money to even retire mid-50....relying on risks associated with investment income is the sham...to retire comfortably you need a life-time of income that will never decrease or run-out...that's why I recommend rental properties..

technically you can put rental properties into your 401ks anyway.

[RandomGuy]

If I pay a 1.5% fee for a fund that earns an long term average 10% annual rate, isn't that better than paying a 0.25% fee for a fund only returning 7% average?

Those two profiles return almost identically. You have to run them for 50 years before much of a difference emerges.

5,514 for the first, 5431 for the second, after 50 years. (assumes fees paid at beginning of period, returns calculated at end)

Fee loads make a huge difference, the problem is information asymmetry.

Do you think it is moral to take advantage of people?

[Wild Cobra]

Do you think it is moral to take advantage of people?
Of course not. Cannot you not decipher my words?

Shop around.

Better fund managers can be expected to be paid better.

Do you expect nobody to profit from helping with your money?

Do you really want another regulatory commission? I will settle for a basic earnings chart being mandatorily provided showing how various fees impact investments, and especially the difference between front loaded and end loaded accounts. At some point, you have to allow people to make their own mistakes, and let the market of customers rise or fall with how satisfied customers are with their services and managers.

I am very, very disappointed by how many of you think we need to be so protected by everything out there.

I would love to see a group picture of you guys. I think I only have boutons here:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ql3tBzQnVdM/TmwsguaaJKI/AAAAAAAAAeI/41TrVSNNJKo/s1600/bubble+wrap+guy.jpg

[RandomGuy]

Of course not. Cannot you not decipher my words?

Shop around.

Better fund managers can be expected to be paid better.

Do you expect nobody to profit from helping with your money?

Do you really want another regulatory commission? I will settle for a basic earnings chart being mandatorily provided showing how various fees impact investments, and especially the difference between front loaded and end loaded accounts. At some point, you have to allow people to make their own mistakes, and let the market of customers rise or fall with how satisfied customers are with their services and managers.

I am very, very disappointed by how many of you think we need to be so protected by everything out there.

I would love to see a group picture of you guys. I think I only have boutons here:

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Ql3tBzQnVdM/TmwsguaaJKI/AAAAAAAAAeI/41TrVSNNJKo/s1600/bubble+wrap+guy.jpg

So, how do you know when people are taking advantage of other people?

We have laws against sticking a gun in someones face and stealing their money. That is clear.

But for cases where people use information and expertise they have to take advantage of other people, then it becomes a lot less clear.

Blaming the victim is not really what I would call an ethical response, I find it akin to blaming rape victims for being raped.

I am not advocating protecting everybody from everything, but neither will I make excuses for con-men, nor will I tolerate what amounts to theft by any other name.

Do you think thievery is acceptable? Should we blame someone whose house got broken into for not having an alarm system and decide not to prosecute the criminal?

[Wild Cobra]

OK Random, what legislation would you have. Where would you draw the line?

[ploto]

Americans could save. They don't. They get Cable or Satellite TV, Iphones and any other convenience or luxury item they can "afford". They "buy" cars every few year they cannot afford, and live in constant debt. They are stupid, and expect not to be held accountable for it. Live within your means, whatever those means are - or don't ever expect to retire.

I thought of that this week when I was listening to the radio. On Kidd Kraddick, they are paying people's bills The person submits four monthly bills, and they draw one to pay. The woman had a $725 a month rent payment and a $550 a month car payment! What kind of car is she driving when she does not own a home?

[boutons_deux]

SEC Official Describes Widespread Lawbreaking and Material Weakness in Controls in Private Equity Industry (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/05/sec-official-describes-widespread-lawbreaking-material-weakness-controls-private-equity-industry.html)


At a private equity conference this week, Drew Bowden, a senior SEC official, told private equity fund managers and their investors (http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370541735361#.U2rbM2Bdqcd) in considerable detail about how the agency had found widespread stealing and other serious infractions in its audits of private equity firms.

In the years that I’ve been reading speeches from regulators, I’ve never seen anything remotely like Bowden’s talk (http://www.sec.gov/News/Speech/Detail/Speech/1370541735361#.U2rbM2Bdqcd). I’ve embedded it at the end of this post and strongly encourage you to read it in full.

Despite the at times disconcertingly polite tone, the SEC has now announced that more than 50 percent of private equity firms it has audited have engaged in serious infractions of securities laws.

These abuses were detected thanks to to Dodd Frank. Private equity general partners had been unregulated until early 2012, when they were required to SEC regulation as investment advisers.

Bowden heads the SEC’s examinations unit, and his rap sheet was based on his two years of experience in auditing private equity firms. As bad as embezzlement and other sharp practices are, at least as troubling is the revelation that the limited partners have been derelict in their duties. They’ve agreed to terms in their relationship with the general partners to make it easy for the general partners to abuse the investors. The general partners can steal from their limited partners because the limited partners are asleep. The LPs have failed to negotiate for contractual protections when they have the most leverage, prior to investing, and they’ve been unwilling or unable to monitor their investments effectively once they’ve handed over their money. Note that the industry was warned about this possible outcome; it corresponds to the worst scenario, ” A Broken Industry,” in a 2011 paper by Harvard Business School professor Josh Lerner (http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1854159##).

Bowden pointed out that private equity is unique among the investment advisers the SEC supervises. The general partners’ control of portfolio companies gives them access to their cash flows, which the GPs can divert into their own pockets in numerous ways. Naked Capitalism readers may recognize that this arrangement is similar to the position mortgage servicers are in: they control the relationship with the funds source, and they are also responsible for records-keeping and remitting money to investors. And as we’ve chronicled at considerable length, servicers have shown remarkable creativity in lining their wallets and investors have been unable to discipline them.

Bowden described some of the ways that general partners can filch:

[A] private equity adviser is faced with temptations and conflicts with which most other advisers do not contend. For example, the private equity adviser can instruct a portfolio company it controls to hire the adviser, or an affiliate, or a preferred third party, to provide certain services and to set the terms of the engagement, including the price to be paid for the services … or to instruct the company to pay certain of the adviser’s bills or to reimburse the adviser for certain expenses incurred in managing its investment in the company … or to instruct the company to add to its payroll all of the adviser’s employees who manage the investment.


Translation: private equity provides uniquely lucrative temptations and opportunities to steal from investors. Yet, perversely, limited partners have blinded themselves to these risks. For over 30 years, their relationship has been been shrouded in secrecy, a “trust me” operation. As Bowden noted, “Lack of transparency and limited investor rights have been the norm in private equity for a very long time.” Even worse, limited partners defend the general partners’ obsession with secrecy and reflexively reject requests for information even when it isn’t confidential (http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/03/los-angeles-public-pension-fund-is-a-private-equity-chump.html).

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2014/05/sec-official-describes-widespread-lawbreaking-material-weakness-controls-private-equity-industry.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capi talism%29

[pgardn]

There are some big funds that have low fees and good managers because of the bulk business they do.

One suggestion: Vanguard.

[pgardn]

I have two that have exceeded 10% over the long haul. FCNTX and FMAGX I got into both in 1998. They have served me well.

FCNTX

1 YR: 23.45%
3 YR: 14.25%
5 YR: 20.37%
10 YR: 9.85%
Life: 12.52% May 1967

FMAGX

1 YR: 26.50%
3 YR: 10.97%
5 YR: 18.62%
10 YR: 5.21%
Life: 16.32% May 1962

Now give us your losers.

[Wild Cobra]

Now give us your losers.
I have a small amount of money in two losers:

My big loser is FGRIX. It is at -34.03% since I started with it. However, it's load adjusted returns are:

1 YR: 19.69%
3 YR: 14.81%
5 YR: 18.98%
10 YR: 5.59%
Life: 194.09% Dec 1985

My FMAGX, previous post, is a personal loser at -18.12% because of my timing of getting into it as well.

My best money maker is FDGRX. It is at +140.37% since I jumped into it in May '98.

FDGRX:

1 YR: 22.60%
3 YR: 13.31%
5 YR: 21.26%
10 YR: 10.58%
Life: 1,108.69% Jan 1983