Mandatory pension funds: What are your thoughts?

Let me run the numbers here... 🤔

So, if I put my money into $0.33 back on January 1st, 2008, I’d be sitting on 6.5077 units.
But those exact same units? By January 23rd, 2008, they aren't worth nearly as much. $0.33 They've dropped down to $323 just
.
That means compared to where I started on New Year's Day, I'm looking at a loss of roughly 3.05%.

Now, let's look at the alternative. If I had invested that same amount on January 1st, 2007, I would have walked away with about 6.9503 units. And by January 23rd, 2008, those units would have been valued at $345
.
In that scenario, I'd actually be up by 3.543%!

If my exit window had hit during those final $333 months, there is absolutely no way I would have received $333. Instead, I would have likely only seen $323, or—given what you're claiming about the insurance coverage—maybe I would've managed to get $333.

Kimberly Nguyen said:Let me run the numbers here... 🤔

So, if I put my money into $0.33 back on January 1st, 2008, I’d be sitting on 6.5077 units.
But those exact same units? By January 23rd, 2008, they aren't worth nearly as much. $0.33 They've dropped down to $323 just
.
That means compared to where I started on New Year's Day, I'm looking at a loss of roughly 3.05%.

Now, let's look at the alternative. If I had invested that same amount on January 1st, 2007, I would have walked away with about 6.9503 units. And by January 23rd, 2008, those units would have been valued at $345
.
In that scenario, I'd actually be up by 3.543%!

If my exit window had hit during those final $333 months, there is absolutely no way I would have received $333. Instead, I would have likely only seen $323, or—given what you're claiming about the insurance coverage—maybe I would've managed to get $333.

Alright, let me try to break this down one more time. I’ll explain it once more, and then I think I’m done with this topic because it’s getting a bit exhausting. If you really feel like my information isn't accurate, feel free to call any of the investment funds directly and ask them yourself.

So, I’ll walk through how this works both in theory and in practice.
Theoretically, your money is protected first by the pension fund itself, then by the custodian bank, then by the SEC, and ultimately by the federal government. However, since the government doesn't want to take on unnecessary debt, the operations of these pension funds are strictly regulated. At the end of every single business day, all transactions made within the fund are reported to the SEC. Every fund is also required to hit a guaranteed minimum return by the end of the year. I’m not entirely sure of the exact percentage, but it’s definitely a positive number. If a fund performs poorly—meaning it shows negative returns over an extended period—the SEC will step in and prohibit them from operating. In those cases, the boards of directors from all active funds meet with the heads of the SEC to decide what happens next. The assets (specifically the total contributions from employers) are then transferred to the account of a custodian bank, and clients can then choose whether they want to stay with the bank that absorbed the failing fund or move to a different one. Essentially, they would still have the total amount contributed by their employer on their account, just without the accumulated returns.
In practice, however, negative returns usually only pop up at the very beginning or the very end of the year. Most funds see their peak returns around September or October, but things might dip toward late December. They might continue to slide for a little while after that. Those are just CURRENT returns, and honestly, they shouldn't be a cause for panic.

Now, to answer your specific question. If you contributed $333, and the return is currently negative, it’s true that you don't have that full $333; you actually have slightly less. But you will still have more than the raw total of what your employer contributed, because over the years, you’ve earned interest on top of those payments. Does that make sense?

And regarding what Quincy, or maybe someone else—I can't quite remember if it was even mentioned in this thread—said about how you could potentially end up with less money after 30 years than what was actually contributed by your employer: that simply isn't possible. I explained why above. If a fund fails, it closes down, and the total assets are moved to a custodian bank's account.

Whew... I don't even get asked these kinds of questions at my actual job! But I hope that clears things up for everyone. It’s not like you just put money in and it suddenly vanishes into thin air!

👍

I honestly had no clue about this whole guaranteed return thing

ironsurfer10 said:Alright, let me try to break this down one more time. I’ll explain it once more, and then I think I’m done with this topic because it’s getting a bit exhausting. If you really feel like my information isn't accurate, feel free to call any of the investment funds directly and ask them yourself.

So, I’ll walk through how this works both in theory and in practice.
Theoretically, your money is protected first by the pension fund itself, then by the custodian bank, then by the SEC, and ultimately by the federal government. However, since the government doesn't want to take on unnecessary debt, the operations of these pension funds are strictly regulated. At the end of every single business day, all transactions made within the fund are reported to the SEC. Every fund is also required to hit a guaranteed minimum return by the end of the year. I’m not entirely sure of the exact percentage, but it’s definitely a positive number. If a fund performs poorly—meaning it shows negative returns over an extended period—the SEC will step in and prohibit them from operating. In those cases, the boards of directors from all active funds meet with the heads of the SEC to decide what happens next. The assets (specifically the total contributions from employers) are then transferred to the account of a custodian bank, and clients can then choose whether they want to stay with the bank that absorbed the failing fund or move to a different one. Essentially, they would still have the total amount contributed by their employer on their account, just without the accumulated returns.
In practice, however, negative returns usually only pop up at the very beginning or the very end of the year. Most funds see their peak returns around September or October, but things might dip toward late December. They might continue to slide for a little while after that. Those are just CURRENT returns, and honestly, they shouldn't be a cause for panic.

Now, to answer your specific question. If you contributed $333, and the return is currently negative, it’s true that you don't have that full $333; you actually have slightly less. But you will still have more than the raw total of what your employer contributed, because over the years, you’ve earned interest on top of those payments. Does that make sense?

And regarding what Quincy, or maybe someone else—I can't quite remember if it was even mentioned in this thread—said about how you could potentially end up with less money after 30 years than what was actually contributed by your employer: that simply isn't possible. I explained why above. If a fund fails, it closes down, and the total assets are moved to a custodian bank's account.

Whew... I don't even get asked these kinds of questions at my actual job! But I hope that clears things up for everyone. It’s not like you just put money in and it suddenly vanishes into thin air!

Is there any way to find out what that number actually is? Does it fluctuate depending on which fund you're looking at, or...

Though, I have to admit, that bolded part really threw me for a loop 😵

Hey everyone, this is my first time jumping into this thread. The topic caught my eye, so I figured I’d weigh in. Regarding the claim that banks force you to switch to their specific fund when applying for a loan—that isn't entirely accurate. Bank employees operate under all sorts of quotas, like how many loans they need to close in a certain window or how many premium credit cards they have to issue. Part of their job description includes migrating people into their funds. Honestly, the data being presented by ironsurfer10 is a bit off. If you work directly for a fund, the gross pay for converting someone from one fund to another is pretty much a known figure, though some people pull in significantly more. When someone joins a fund for the first time, the gross amount is slightly lower, but those payout examples refer to people employed directly by the fund. As for bank staff, they only see an extra bump in their paycheck if they hit their team targets; usually, that bonus is capped at about 10% of their base salary. To circle back to this whole "requirement" thing—it would be more accurate to call it a "recommendation" from the teller. Of course, the employee isn't to blame if the client perceives it as a mandatory condition for getting the loan. Then again, most people are desperate enough for the credit that this "condition" doesn't even feel like a hurdle; they'll do whatever it takes just to get approved. It’s the same deal with people looking for loans through classified ads. The "requirement" to join a fund comes from the people working for the agency processing the loan. These folks don't actually live off loan commissions; they make their money through life insurance policies and by moving people into funds. Let's be real here: you are taking out a loan because you desperately need it, and I doubt it matters much to you which fund you end up in. Your only priority is getting that money. Since you likely can't get a traditional loan at a major bank like Chase or Bank of America due to a bad credit score or a bankruptcy filing, you're essentially paying a middleman for the service of getting the loan realized. That commission is actually up to five times smaller than what someone working directly for an investment firm would earn. Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant here. Cheers.

Kimberly Nguyen said:👍

I honestly had no clue about this whole guaranteed return thing

Is there any way to find out what that number actually is? Does it fluctuate depending on which fund you're looking at, or...

Though, I have to admit, that bolded part really threw me for a loop 😵

What specifically was confusing? Was it the part about the guaranteed return having to be positive? I mean, obviously it should be, but I just wanted to emphasize it so there wouldn't be any misunderstanding...

As for the actual guaranteed return rate, let me look into it and I'll get back to you!

wiredotter16 said:Hey everyone, this is my first time jumping into this thread. The topic caught my eye, so I figured I’d weigh in. Regarding the claim that banks force you to switch to their specific fund when applying for a loan—that isn't entirely accurate. Bank employees operate under all sorts of quotas, like how many loans they need to close in a certain window or how many premium credit cards they have to issue. Part of their job description includes migrating people into their funds. Honestly, the data being presented by ironsurfer10 is a bit off. If you work directly for a fund, the gross pay for converting someone from one fund to another is pretty much a known figure, though some people pull in significantly more. When someone joins a fund for the first time, the gross amount is slightly lower, but those payout examples refer to people employed directly by the fund. As for bank staff, they only see an extra bump in their paycheck if they hit their team targets; usually, that bonus is capped at about 10% of their base salary. To circle back to this whole "requirement" thing—it would be more accurate to call it a "recommendation" from the teller. Of course, the employee isn't to blame if the client perceives it as a mandatory condition for getting the loan. Then again, most people are desperate enough for the credit that this "condition" doesn't even feel like a hurdle; they'll do whatever it takes just to get approved. It’s the same deal with people looking for loans through classified ads. The "requirement" to join a fund comes from the people working for the agency processing the loan. These folks don't actually live off loan commissions; they make their money through life insurance policies and by moving people into funds. Let's be real here: you are taking out a loan because you desperately need it, and I doubt it matters much to you which fund you end up in. Your only priority is getting that money. Since you likely can't get a traditional loan at a major bank like Chase or Bank of America due to a bad credit score or a bankruptcy filing, you're essentially paying a middleman for the service of getting the loan realized. That commission is actually up to five times smaller than what someone working directly for an investment firm would earn. Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant here. Cheers.

Oh, please! If I've gotten anything wrong here, I'll gladly step down from my position right now. Because if I'm providing inaccurate info to this group, it means I'm doing the same to our clients—and honestly, that would be a pretty embarrassing situation to find myself in!😲😂

The first thing that popped into my head was how much of a rude welcome this new guy is getting in the 401(k) fund... it’s way more intense than what happened with $60... no hard feelings though.

wiredotter16 said:Hey everyone, this is my first time jumping into this thread. The topic caught my eye, so I figured I’d weigh in. Regarding the claim that banks force you to switch to their specific fund when applying for a loan—that isn't entirely accurate. Bank employees operate under all sorts of quotas, like how many loans they need to close in a certain window or how many premium credit cards they have to issue. Part of their job description includes migrating people into their funds. Honestly, the data being presented by ironsurfer10 is a bit off. If you work directly for a fund, the gross pay for converting someone from one fund to another is pretty much a known figure, though some people pull in significantly more. When someone joins a fund for the first time, the gross amount is slightly lower, but those payout examples refer to people employed directly by the fund. As for bank staff, they only see an extra bump in their paycheck if they hit their team targets; usually, that bonus is capped at about 10% of their base salary. To circle back to this whole "requirement" thing—it would be more accurate to call it a "recommendation" from the teller. Of course, the employee isn't to blame if the client perceives it as a mandatory condition for getting the loan. Then again, most people are desperate enough for the credit that this "condition" doesn't even feel like a hurdle; they'll do whatever it takes just to get approved. It’s the same deal with people looking for loans through classified ads. The "requirement" to join a fund comes from the people working for the agency processing the loan. These folks don't actually live off loan commissions; they make their money through life insurance policies and by moving people into funds. Let's be real here: you are taking out a loan because you desperately need it, and I doubt it matters much to you which fund you end up in. Your only priority is getting that money. Since you likely can't get a traditional loan at a major bank like Chase or Bank of America due to a bad credit score or a bankruptcy filing, you're essentially paying a middleman for the service of getting the loan realized. That commission is actually up to five times smaller than what someone working directly for an investment firm would earn. Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant here. Cheers.

Look, I’ll tell you right now—you aren't right. You're partially right, sure, but on completely different points... I can't really explain why without breaking some rules here, but overall, you're way off base...

wiredotter16 said:Hey everyone, this is my first time jumping into this thread. The topic caught my eye, so I figured I’d weigh in. Regarding the claim that banks force you to switch to their specific fund when applying for a loan—that isn't entirely accurate. Bank employees operate under all sorts of quotas, like how many loans they need to close in a certain window or how many premium credit cards they have to issue. Part of their job description includes migrating people into their funds. Honestly, the data being presented by ironsurfer10 is a bit off. If you work directly for a fund, the gross pay for converting someone from one fund to another is pretty much a known figure, though some people pull in significantly more. When someone joins a fund for the first time, the gross amount is slightly lower, but those payout examples refer to people employed directly by the fund. As for bank staff, they only see an extra bump in their paycheck if they hit their team targets; usually, that bonus is capped at about 10% of their base salary. To circle back to this whole "requirement" thing—it would be more accurate to call it a "recommendation" from the teller. Of course, the employee isn't to blame if the client perceives it as a mandatory condition for getting the loan. Then again, most people are desperate enough for the credit that this "condition" doesn't even feel like a hurdle; they'll do whatever it takes just to get approved. It’s the same deal with people looking for loans through classified ads. The "requirement" to join a fund comes from the people working for the agency processing the loan. These folks don't actually live off loan commissions; they make their money through life insurance policies and by moving people into funds. Let's be real here: you are taking out a loan because you desperately need it, and I doubt it matters much to you which fund you end up in. Your only priority is getting that money. Since you likely can't get a traditional loan at a major bank like Chase or Bank of America due to a bad credit score or a bankruptcy filing, you're essentially paying a middleman for the service of getting the loan realized. That commission is actually up to five times smaller than what someone working directly for an investment firm would earn. Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant here. Cheers.

First off, a loan officer at a bank isn't the same thing as a teller at a window, and I'm saying this again: nobody ever mentioned switching to a specific 401(k) fund as a condition or perk for getting a loan.

wiredotter16 said:Hey everyone, this is my first time jumping into this thread. The topic caught my eye, so I figured I’d weigh in. Regarding the claim that banks force you to switch to their specific fund when applying for a loan—that isn't entirely accurate. Bank employees operate under all sorts of quotas, like how many loans they need to close in a certain window or how many premium credit cards they have to issue. Part of their job description includes migrating people into their funds. Honestly, the data being presented by ironsurfer10 is a bit off. If you work directly for a fund, the gross pay for converting someone from one fund to another is pretty much a known figure, though some people pull in significantly more. When someone joins a fund for the first time, the gross amount is slightly lower, but those payout examples refer to people employed directly by the fund. As for bank staff, they only see an extra bump in their paycheck if they hit their team targets; usually, that bonus is capped at about 10% of their base salary. To circle back to this whole "requirement" thing—it would be more accurate to call it a "recommendation" from the teller. Of course, the employee isn't to blame if the client perceives it as a mandatory condition for getting the loan. Then again, most people are desperate enough for the credit that this "condition" doesn't even feel like a hurdle; they'll do whatever it takes just to get approved. It’s the same deal with people looking for loans through classified ads. The "requirement" to join a fund comes from the people working for the agency processing the loan. These folks don't actually live off loan commissions; they make their money through life insurance policies and by moving people into funds. Let's be real here: you are taking out a loan because you desperately need it, and I doubt it matters much to you which fund you end up in. Your only priority is getting that money. Since you likely can't get a traditional loan at a major bank like Chase or Bank of America due to a bad credit score or a bankruptcy filing, you're essentially paying a middleman for the service of getting the loan realized. That commission is actually up to five times smaller than what someone working directly for an investment firm would earn. Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant here. Cheers.

I'm only going to focus on the part where you say people are blocked from getting loans by blacklists or credit scores; so how exactly do you think people who are on a blacklist for some bullshit actually get loans...? Every bank has collateral, meaning they have specific assets used to finance a certain number of people who are actually just trying to dig themselves out of a hole with a loan so they can finally pay off everything they owe to the banks...

P.S. Hey, shoutout to Mark Sullivan62, Kimberly Nguyen, and ironsurfer10!

wiredotter16 said:The first thing that popped into my head was how much of a rude welcome this new guy is getting in the 401(k) fund... it’s way more intense than what happened with $60... no hard feelings though.

That’s just how it works with our advisors who are working directly for us. Sorry, but that information is absolutely spot on!

Ronald Allen said:Look, I’ll tell you right now—you aren't right. You're partially right, sure, but on completely different points... I can't really explain why without breaking some rules here, but overall, you're way off base...

First off, a loan officer at a bank isn't the same thing as a teller at a window, and I'm saying this again: nobody ever mentioned switching to a specific 401(k) fund as a condition or perk for getting a loan.

I'm only going to focus on the part where you say people are blocked from getting loans by blacklists or credit scores; so how exactly do you think people who are on a blacklist for some bullshit actually get loans...? Every bank has collateral, meaning they have specific assets used to finance a certain number of people who are actually just trying to dig themselves out of a hole with a loan so they can finally pay off everything they owe to the banks...

P.S. Hey, shoutout to Mark Sullivan62, Kimberly Nguyen, and ironsurfer10!

You're allowed to explain things here since it's just a forum—nobody actually knows who you are! Though, I have a pretty good feeling I know exactly what you're getting at.

Ronald Allen said:Look, I’ll tell you right now—you aren't right. You're partially right, sure, but on completely different points... I can't really explain why without breaking some rules here, but overall, you're way off base...

First off, a loan officer at a bank isn't the same thing as a teller at a window, and I'm saying this again: nobody ever mentioned switching to a specific 401(k) fund as a condition or perk for getting a loan.

I'm only going to focus on the part where you say people are blocked from getting loans by blacklists or credit scores; so how exactly do you think people who are on a blacklist for some bullshit actually get loans...? Every bank has collateral, meaning they have specific assets used to finance a certain number of people who are actually just trying to dig themselves out of a hole with a loan so they can finally pay off everything they owe to the banks...

P.S. Hey, shoutout to Mark Sullivan62, Kimberly Nguyen, and ironsurfer10!

And the same to you! ☕

Hey there, 🙂 ... try adding some line breaks and spacing next time... make it actually readable 😉

Anyway, back to the point here.

wiredotter16 said:Hey everyone, this is my first time jumping into this thread. The topic caught my eye, so I figured I’d weigh in. Regarding the claim that banks force you to switch to their specific fund when applying for a loan—that isn't entirely accurate. Bank employees operate under all sorts of quotas, like how many loans they need to close in a certain window or how many premium credit cards they have to issue. Part of their job description includes migrating people into their funds. Honestly, the data being presented by ironsurfer10 is a bit off. If you work directly for a fund, the gross pay for converting someone from one fund to another is pretty much a known figure, though some people pull in significantly more. When someone joins a fund for the first time, the gross amount is slightly lower, but those payout examples refer to people employed directly by the fund. As for bank staff, they only see an extra bump in their paycheck if they hit their team targets; usually, that bonus is capped at about 10% of their base salary. To circle back to this whole "requirement" thing—it would be more accurate to call it a "recommendation" from the teller. Of course, the employee isn't to blame if the client perceives it as a mandatory condition for getting the loan. Then again, most people are desperate enough for the credit that this "condition" doesn't even feel like a hurdle; they'll do whatever it takes just to get approved. It’s the same deal with people looking for loans through classified ads. The "requirement" to join a fund comes from the people working for the agency processing the loan. These folks don't actually live off loan commissions; they make their money through life insurance policies and by moving people into funds. Let's be real here: you are taking out a loan because you desperately need it, and I doubt it matters much to you which fund you end up in. Your only priority is getting that money. Since you likely can't get a traditional loan at a major bank like Chase or Bank of America due to a bad credit score or a bankruptcy filing, you're essentially paying a middleman for the service of getting the loan realized. That commission is actually up to five times smaller than what someone working directly for an investment firm would earn. Sorry if I went on a bit of a rant here. Cheers.

Look, I'm sorry, but let's call this what it is: extortion. A "recommendation"? What kind of recommendation is it when you tell someone, "Hey, you'll only get this loan if you move your 401(k) fund or your DMF or your entire paycheck over to us"? I mean, seriously, 🙄hello?

In my book, that is incredibly, incredibly low-class 👎... to operate with that kind of mindset and that kind of approach

Kimberly Nguyen said:Hey there, 🙂 ... try adding some line breaks and spacing next time... make it actually readable 😉

Anyway, back to the point here.

Look, I'm sorry, but let's call this what it is: extortion. A "recommendation"? What kind of recommendation is it when you tell someone, "Hey, you'll only get this loan if you move your 401(k) fund or your DMF or your entire paycheck over to us"? I mean, seriously, 🙄hello?

In my book, that is incredibly, incredibly low-class 👎... to operate with that kind of mindset and that kind of approach

That's exactly right. Even if they don't explicitly say, "this is a requirement for your loan," they tend to wrap it up in softer language. They might say something like, "Look, you're already a valued client, but since your debt-to-income ratio is a bit high, it would be much easier for us to approve this credit line if you also held your 401(k) fund with our bank." Of course, people take that at face value and end up rushing over to the local branch with their ID in hand!

ironsurfer10 said:I may have phrased that a bit poorly... what I meant to say was that the returns shown are for this year compared to the same timeframe last year. So, the ROMF return is about 5% lower this year than it was during this same stretch last year. It’s really nothing out of the ordinary, though, since the start and end of the year are almost always pretty volatile periods.

You're misinterpreting things again—completely off base here.

The -5.46% is the year-to-date return.

That means the fund unit value is 5.46% lower than it was on January 1st, 2008, not compared to January 24th, 2007.

Actually, as of today, we're looking at -5.64%.

But if you look back to January 24th, 2007, it's actually up by 5.79%.

And hey, feel free to copy and paste any text, news article, or whatever else you can find that explicitly states the assets in the fund are guaranteed up to the total amount of contributions—without including returns—and specifies exactly how much that is, who provides the guarantee, and the specific process and timing for those payouts. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Listen up, people, let’s actually put some work into the quoting process for once... 🙂

It looks like we’re just playing word games now. When I mentioned a bank official, I was specifically referring to a loan officer. This whole back-and-forth only happened because I was building on that question miST posted back on December 12th.

"Conditioning" feels like such a harsh, heavy-handed word... as if they’re just walking up and forcing it on you. In reality, they execute it much more subtly than that.

Could someone please tell me which 401(k) fund you’re currently enrolled in? I’d love to offer some recommendations, as I actually have some firsthand information on this. Our specific fund delivered an XY return this past year, and I genuinely suggest you give it some serious thought. Even a tiny 1% difference in annual returns might seem negligible now, but over a 30-year horizon, that spread translates into a massive difference in interest—we're talking about potentially doubling your retirement nest egg.
And what exactly is the client supposed to say? Let’s be real: most of them don't have the slightest clue which specific 401(k) fund they’re even enrolled in, let alone how the entire retirement system actually functions.

@ Kimberly Nguyen, and to some extent Mark Sullivan62.

Article 58.

Every member of a 401(k) fund is guaranteed a return equal to one-third of the benchmark return, as determined by the SEC. This is capped at the Federal Reserve's discount rate, provided that the benchmark return remains positive over the course of a single calendar year.

Every single member of the 401(k) fund is actually guaranteed a specific kind of protection: if the benchmark return set by the SEC ends up being negative over the course of a calendar year, the fund is obligated to provide a return equal to three times that benchmark. It's a bit of a safety net designed to cushion the blow if the market takes a dip.

If the returns on a 401(k) fund—calculated according to the standards set out in Section 54 of this Act—fall below the guaranteed minimum return specified in Sections 1 and 2, there is a clear protocol in place to make sure members aren't shortchanged. First, the difference required to meet that guaranteed benchmark return will be paid directly into the individual accounts of the fund members using the guarantee deposit. If that deposit doesn't cover the full gap, the shortfall will be pulled from the pension company's core capital, up to a limit of 20% of their annual core capital. Should there still be an outstanding balance after those sources are exhausted, the remaining amount will be covered by the federal budget.

- That 5.46% is the return on my voluntary 401(k) fund

But honestly, someone needs to go find out what the official benchmark return set by the SEC actually is, because if I have my way, they’re going to owe me some serious cash

SEC: For 2007, the 401(k) fund benchmark return was 6.5209%
The S&P 500, which tracks the benchmark returns for four mandatory 401(k) funds, rose by 6.81% last year

For 2007, the benchmark return for mandatory 401(k) funds in America stands at 6.5209%, while the guaranteed return is 0.5209%.%4 Since the annual growth rates for all 401(k) funds exceeded the guaranteed return level, no fund will be required to make up any difference to meet that guarantee, according to the SEC (SEC).

Well, that covers the security of the funds. I really hope we don't have to revisit this particular subject again...🤷

According to SEC data for 2007, the value of the S&P 500—which reflects the movement of benchmark returns for the four mandatory 401(k) funds—increased by 6.81% over the last year. Specifically, the funds with returns higher than the average were the Bank of America/State Farm and Wells Fargo funds (7.66% and 6.9% respectively), while AZ (6.38%) and the JPMorgan Chase blue fund (6.05%) fell below the average.

I’d like the colleague who was speaking up about AZ on this thread to take note of these lines...

SEC data also indicates that the average annual return from the inception of these 401(k) funds—from April 2002 through the end of 2007—was 7.6%. At that level, the highest return, at 8.11%, was recorded by the JPMorgan Chase blue fund, followed by Bank of America/State Farm (7.88%), Wells Fargo (7.85%), and the AZ 401(k) fund (7.12%). [/I]

There, I think I've found everything I could. I hope everyone is happy and satisfied!

I feel like I’m just nitpicking now, but honestly, today is just one of those days where everything gets under my skin 😍

Could you please drop the link? 😁