Michael Coslo wrote:
bb wrote:
Michael Coslo wrote:

snippage

There are a number of options in which you can spread percentages
of
your money. Those options run the spectrum from blue chip to high
yield, high risk.


No bonds? Any balanced funds?

Yup.

Holy Cow! And I thought they only had highly risky investment choices.
At least that's the way you and Jim have made it sound.

A lot of people don't take that approach though. They listen to the
investment mantra that "Over the long term, the market always goes
up".

That's a fact.

Unfortunately their advisor neglects to tell them that what matters
is where the stock market is when they retire.

Sounds like you you could open your own Jones office.

And for whatever reason, they don't figure that out for themselves.

There you go. If you ever get tired of working at the school, you
really could open that Jones office.

Your retirement income is based on your contributions and how
well the investments did.


Is there a "guaranteed return" selection? Of course, even that
won't
work if the government devalues its currency.

The most conservative investments have an interest rate that gets
adjusted every so often.

Is that vehicle capable of losing its principle?

The Federal Government would likely put limits on the types of
investments you could make with your SS diversion.

Ho-boy, another Federally controlled system. 8^)


Oh, I forgot. Social Security is a Township Trustee run system.

No gold and platinum futures, for example.

Probably a good idea.


As you graduate to an older age group,
they would probably change the investment vehicles available.

Gosh!

One of the people I know that lost a lot of money was thinking
that.
He said that two years before retirement, he was going to pull his
money
out of the high risk stuff and put it into the "safe" stuff.


Did he? Or did he think the market was still going good and left
it in
riskier investments?

He chose to believe that things were going to get better and to stay

the course. By the time he got wise, it was too late.

Was it really? Why?

But that's just me thinking out loud. I heard from Al Franken
that
Bush doesn't want any ideas on this matter.



On the other hand, I was very careful with my retirement
investments,and didn't lose anything. All I did was take a hit
in

my earning rate.

Until the bubble burst though, Len wasn't the only person that
thinks I'm a dimbulb!

Aren't you a University of PA employee?

Penn State. U of Pa is the one in Philadelphia.


The point is that you do have a government pension plan.

Yup.


In Ohio, our Governor has put some political appointees on the
retirement fund board, and he wants to make the fund invest in
Ohio,
which is a losing prop.

Sounds like a bad idea. Not specifically about Ohio, but limiting
investments to a particular area is almost like investing in only the

high risk areas.

Yep.

Just how much control do you have over your state employee and

school


employee retirement funds?

Those two plans. We also have an additional TDA possibility from
various companies. On the state plan, there is not a lot you can
do. On the other plan, there are more investment options.


TDA? Is that like a supplemental, tax-deferred investment option?
Ohio has a 457, "deferred compensation," plan, which is in
addition
to the public employees retirement system.

Yup, that's it.




http://nrsretire.nrsservicecenter.co...ome/?Site=Ohio

Ohio also has five (5) public employees retirement systems for
some
reason.

http://ohio.gov/Retirement.stm

If you want to see something scary, look at the Federal Employees
Retirement System. They tell you right up front that SS is "the
rest
of your retirement." Not the so called safety net that Jim and
FDR
described it as.


I see they have three different plans, Social Security, a basic
benefit plan and a thrift savings plan. Looks pretty much like
a typical plan group.

- Mike KB3EIA -


Looks nothing like the former SCRS. Does Penn State contribute 1%
of
your income to your plan, then tell you that SS is the rest of it?

Nope.

Anyway, the only benefit to being in SS is if you have a life
changing
injury or illness and can no longer work.

I pretty much agree.

If you take it to 65 (or 67
depending on the whims of the democratic party) the ROI is slim to
none. Savings bonds beat it.

Republicans are in power now. They have assumed the mantle of
responsibility. It is now their whims that count.

- Mike KB3EIA -

Mike, how quickly you wish to forget the democrat legacy. I can't
blame you. But apparently I've been brainwashed by the dems for the
past 30 years that SS will be bankrupt by the time its my turn to feed
at the trough. Ask anyone in their 40's if SS will be there for them
when they retire, and you'll not get a lot of positive answers. Or do
you disagree?