Comments on: The Future of 401(k) Plans

By: Brigitte Madrian

Brigitte Madrian — Tue, 29 Jul 2008 16:23:52 +0000

As one of the authors of the research study cited in the article, I would like to point out that our study does not state anywhere that “the money companies use to match contributions could be better used elsewhere and save companies money” as suggested in this article. Our study shows that in companies with automatic enrollment, participation rates are not very sensitive to the level of the employer match or to whether or not there is a match. It does not examine the impact of an employer match in companies without automatic enrollment–and the majority of firms with 401(k) plans do not use automatic enrollment. It makes no conclusions about whether the employer match constitutes an optimal or sub-optimal allocation of employer expenditures. It makes no assertions as stated in this article that employers would be better served by using their matching contributions to “lower health care costs, minimize 401(k) plan fees and help pay for employee benefits.”

By: mc

mc — Wed, 23 Jul 2008 13:39:37 +0000

Looks like the first thing Fox cut was proof readers. This article barely makes sense.

By: Greedom

Greedom — Tue, 22 Jul 2008 14:44:24 +0000

Yes, if real estate – localize- location location location

and if stock – dislocate- diversify diversify diversify.

I liked the real estate note on location taking precedence.

from different article though.

you people don’t have a picture of Liz MacDonald up on the best team in business picture to the right of this text window I observe.