<p>Just took a quick look today and very happy about the number. </p>
<p>The company stock went from the high of near $60 to near $5 at the low. Over all these time, I continue to invest monthly. The $ cost average works well this time. Today, the stock comes very close to the 52 week high. </p>
<p>Look like retirement in 20 years is possible!!!</p>
<p>I hope you are at or near a 52 week high, considering the market absolute low was about 52 weeks ago. So how are we doing compared to say, October 2007?</p>
<p>Just remember, the closer you are to retirement, the more money you have to lose and the minimum time to get it back. What has happened over the last two years has been happening more frequently and with worse consequences.</p>
<p>Didn’t Enron teach you about keeping all your 401k in the company stock.</p>
<p>Good point. There is enough risk in the market to avoid betting too much on one stock. I’d put in the minimum required and look elsewhere.</p>
<p>I expect I’ll be able to retire in about 20 years also. :)</p>
<p>Unfortunately, I’m already 61. :(</p>
<p>NJRes, what’s depressing for me is to look at the value of some of the stocks I owned in 2000, as compared to now, 10 years later! Some of them are only 1/3 of the value they were then!</p>
<p>The lesson of the last year is that dollar cost averaging works. When the market is up you contribute. When the market is down you contribute. </p>
<p>The other lesson is the importance of proper asset allocation. The message to the younger crowd was correct… don’t lose sleep over it and just keep contributing, the market has plenty of time to come back. </p>
<p>The older crowd near retirement crying about the huge hit their portfolio was taking were only highlighting that they had poor asset allocation. Someone near or in retirement should have never been significantly exposed to the markets (at least with the money intended to provided that monthly income stream). Having the majority of money in the markets in or near retirement is effectively just gambling. Some tried to ‘cheat’ by catching up on decades of not saving by hoping for a quick win with booming markets and booming housing… those folks got burned bad–as do most people who try their hand at the craps table. </p>
<p>I remember a year ago there were some folks on here saying they were going to stop contributing or, even worse, pull their money out of the market. What a huge mistake. Those who stuck steadfast to their investment plans and kept investing (despite the red ink all over their monthly statement) have made an absolute killing on the money invested a year ago. </p>
<p>Also, your company’s stock has no place in your 401k! Seriously, have we learned nothing? If you get issued shares or decent options by all means take the ‘free’ money… then put it in an actual diversified portfolio. Have anything more than a small percentage of your retirement nestegg in your company’s stock is just asking for trouble.</p>
<p>I’m quite happy with my number too. Since I’m in my mid-20s, most of my contributions to my 401(k) have been since the recession started, so I got a decent amount of money in while the market was terrible, and now it’s going up.</p>
<p>I agree with most of the thread that filling your 401(k) with company stock is a bad idea.</p>
<p>I manage both our 401Ks and I’m really good at protecting our contributions. Have managed to pull out of stocks to avoid the big meltdowns (even bonds last time). So DH kisses my feel and calls me a genius. The problem is that I’m terrible at getting much growth in our investments. Completely missed the last run-up. Yes, we contribute the maximums but our growth rate is pathetic, < 5%. At this rate, we will work an awfully long time.</p>
<p>So what do you think about the market going forward? My prognostication is that tomorrow it will be down because of healthcare but probably a good day to buy and hold until the end of the week because of window dressing at the end of the quarter. After that - long term performance -(after this year - unknown.)</p>
<p>Company’s stock is up 2.5x from last year’s average lows. Up ~15% from just 30 days.</p>
<p>We’re finally about even with what we lost but never had in the 401k. IRA’s another story. Question is whether we should move to move towards cash? 62 this year.</p>
<p>“Having the majority of money in the markets in or near retirement is effectively just gambling.”</p>
<p>You need to have a pretty substantial portion in the market especially if you live another 30+ years.</p>
<p>I’m going to change my prediction on the long term market performance from unknown to disastrous in the 3 - 10 year time frame. For the next recession which will surely happen in the forementioned time frame (it happens with regularity) will make this one look like a party. Too big to fail banks are bigger and more dangerous. Our debt is spiraling out of control and the traditional method for getting out of recessions - increasing government spending - (defense, social etc) or tax cuts will not work. We have no ammunition left to get out of the next recession. Look out!</p>
<p>401K & 403b are about back where they were before the crash (of course, we’ve been faithfully contributing all that time, so they’re not technically back to where they were …).</p>
<p>Awhile back, I saw my H’s 401k & about had a stroke … TONS in company stock. I told him to move it. He wanted to wait until it went up … I insisted he move it. Boy, is he pleased with me now. The stock is worthless now (seriously … no longer trading).</p>
<p>I had an idea for a mutual fund that could be marketed to employees of large corporations that have 401k plans. It would basically be an S&P index fund ex-company Y. It would actually be up to 100 different funds that would each be marketed to the employees of the top 100 companies. So employees of JP Morgan Chase could buy the ex-JPM fund, which would include index weighted stocks of all 100 S&P 100 companies except for JPM. Employees of Caterpillar could by the ex-CAT fund. This would let them have an overall diversified portfolio.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No. </p>
<p>If someone needs to have a “pretty substantial portion” of their money on the open market to have a chance of surviving 30+ years of retirement then they didn’t save enough. Period. </p>
<p>One needs to save enough to create a rock-solid foundation of guaranteed income that meets ones income needs in retirement years. After that, one can take more risk either to generate additional ‘bonus’ income and work towards building up additional assets to pass onto the next generation and/or donate after their gone. </p>
<p>Trying to play the market in retirement years simply as a means to generate necessary day-to-day income is a disaster waiting to happen.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The normal index funds accomplish this task. Even if your company happens to be part of that pool it’s not risky from the “don’t own your own company’s stock in your retirement fund” standpoint. </p>
<p>Assuming you have an index fund and your company is part of that it’s unlikely it accounts for much more than 1% of the fund’s allocation, if that. Even if the company went totally bust on its own the value of the index fund wouldn’t budge by more than a percent or so.</p>
<p>Watch for sell offs now that capital gains taxes will be going up.</p>
<p>“If someone needs to have a “pretty substantial portion” of their money on the open market to have a chance of surviving 30+ years of retirement then they didn’t save enough. Period.”</p>
<p>Were you working 30 years ago to compare salaries and costs today with then. If so, you wouldn’t dismiss this. This widely accepted nonsense along with other mantras is a mistake.</p>
<p>I agree with the posts on here that we are in for extreme volatility in the coming years. I just don’t believe any sane person should be modeling their future wealth assuming an 8-10 percent average growth rate. </p>
<p>My big burning question is where do you put money you don’t want to risk losing in a 401K when the menu of options is limited to stock funds, life cycle funds and a GIC (guaranteed investment contract that is essentially mortgage backed securities with an AIG insurance wrapper!). Even the most conservative bands in the life cycle funds allocate > 40 percent to stocks. The GIC has so far not lost money but scares the dickens out of me - what if the feds stop the bail-outs?</p>