Comments on: How About a ‘Super 401(k)’?

By: SavingDiva

SavingDiva — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 15:56:45 +0000

I would also trust the company if I received a 22% match. I have to admit that I would check up on it frequently…and if I wasn’t happy, I would certainly let someone know!

By: Meg

Meg — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 22:21:09 +0000

I read the same article. I would do it in a heartbeat. With a 22% match, you would be hard pressed to come out behind no matter how your investment choices perform.

Besides, I think the article really exaggerated the lack of control employees have. They have a choice of a range of Fidelity funds! Those are better options than can be found in most 401k plans that I know of.

By: sam

sam — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 20:49:21 +0000

I think this is a good idea for those people who refuse to take care of their own retirement planning; unfortunately a fairly large segment of the working population. Better to have their retirement savings in a lifestyle fund than in some ultra conservative savings investment paying 4 or 5 percent.

I also recall from the article (I read it last week) that the 22% has to do with people switching from Devon’s defined benefit pension system.

By: james

james — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:41:25 +0000

a match of up to 6%) and allow people to choose their own investments. They’re essentially trying to act as the benevolent dictator of 401ks. Whether or not this is a good idea for the population at large is debatable; it would prevent another Enron (though that’s already been prevented) or anything like it.

You should also note that they’re not really making the decisions for you. Reading the first few paragraphs, I got the image of some know-it-all in accounting making all the investment choices. In fact, they’re simply only giving you target retirement funds to choose from. I see this as being only a bit more limited than some other plans (a few bond funds, an international, and a few US stock funds). Luckily, you can choose which one. For me (26 years old), this is still too conservative, but in 10 – 15 years the fund for the youngest cohorts will be “ok” for me.

By: james

james — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 19:28:10 +0000

Unfortunately, I see no reason why they can’t do both — offer the 22% (16% “flat”, though that’s only for the most senior employees, plus

By: Jordan

Jordan — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 18:58:42 +0000

I’d do it. id put in 6, take the 22 match, even if they dont get any significant earnings, that still a nice addition, then take another 9 percent and invest as I please in an IRA or something similar.