notices - See details
Notices
DM
Daniel McGrath (not verified)
30th May 2020 | 4:30pm

An entertaining but nonconstructive if not outright inflammatory article. The repeated references to "rightful owners", the pitting of 'unimpaired capital' against the average guy, etc. does well to paint a picture of class struggle if not instill a sense of the need for class warfare.

However, a somewhat different view that can be taken away from points 1 though 3 (Poor Trading Habits, the Decline in Defined-Contribution Assets from Older to Younger Retiree Cohorts and 401(k) Raids) is that the Financial Advisor industry on the whole has demonstrably failed their clientele. These "workers, their families, and their retirements" typically have minimal or no functional knowledge of equity markets and likely expect the advisors that collect fees from their accounts to help them avoid the pitfalls as listed. Per the article, they do not. Yet, the financial advisor that 'assist' these clients and the firms that manage those 401(k)s generally profit whether the bull is running or the market is distressed.

Are we really forcing the "vast majority of the population to compete against the few J.P. Morgans and Warren Buffetts" or are we misleading them by having them trust the firms that are supposed to assist them in managing their retirement assets? It would seem from this article that such trust may be misplaced.

In light of the article, I would agree the system needs improvement but I did not see any specifics other than dynamiting the current system and replacing it. The specific question is: With what? If the specifics of the replacement are not yet delineated then perhaps this old phrase applied to another profession wherein trust is supposedly recognized as fundamentally important might be taken into account: Medice, cura te ipsum.