With the decline of pensions the value of 401ks was that they were pretty restricted places to save for retirement for most folks. Your ability to go hog wild and speculate was to some extent limited / less convenient.
That is a net positive as having people save for retirement and ready for retirement takes pressure off the state to support them.
Having the 401k slowly become just a rando account that can hold anything, including a lot of things whose value can swing to 0 is a TERRIBLE idea.
Unless say you're the POTUS and you have an investment in crypto and you want everyone to "pump your bags" and you don't care about what happens to everyone else.
This is to soak retail for liquidity private equity desperately needs. Public market infra already skims from retail today, but there are only ~4300 public companies and that number continues to decline; this is to juice what they can skim via assets under management and transaction fees.
Ask why PE wants access to retail capital directly versus going public to provide exposure and gain liquidity. Why do they not want to go public? (My take: Valuations won't hold up; extend and pretend)
401ks remain fine as investment strategy assuming there is at least a handful of index or target date funds providing the capital market exposure you're after at very low expense ratio cost. But, if your employer's plan doesn't allow in service transfers to a brokerage held IRA, those funds are going to be held captive until you separate and can wholesale transfer. Find the best deal you can within them for your time horizon of having the funds tied up.
Yes, I understand that very well, but I'm taking into account considerations beyond just that. This is piling on to my increasing sense that getting as much separation between me and the US economy as possible is the wise move.
Re-allocating away from US economic exposure is somewhat straightforward. VXUS vs VTI/ITOT, international bond funds (BNDX) vs US bond funds (BND), etc. In my opinion, the harder part is the actual infra you need for value and securities ownership: your brokerage and your bank. As a US citizen, it is a challenge to find a financial services firm outside the US who is going to be willing to custodian and manage securities and other investment assets for you without you being a bona fide resident of their jurisdiction (if you're wealthy enough, this is of course not an issue). Am I at the point where I would consider moving my assets to an entity outside of US control and perhaps acquire hard assets outside the US (real estate, physical gold, etc)? Not yet, but we are getting there slowly, and it is better to have a plan and not need it than to need a plan and not have it.
But doesn't one normally have a great deal of control over their 401(k) investments? Just because these assets are allowed doesn't mean you have to allocate to them.
You're probably right. Nonetheless, these moves (especially the cryptocurrency part) make me nervous, not only about my 401k, but they also increase my anxiety about the economy in general. I think I'll just avoid the whole issue by moving that money somewhere a bit less tied to the US economy.
idk, its not like the housing market has ever had any issues before right? btw I was born in 2008 people keep talking about that year did something happen
With the decline of pensions the value of 401ks was that they were pretty restricted places to save for retirement for most folks. Your ability to go hog wild and speculate was to some extent limited / less convenient.
That is a net positive as having people save for retirement and ready for retirement takes pressure off the state to support them.
Having the 401k slowly become just a rando account that can hold anything, including a lot of things whose value can swing to 0 is a TERRIBLE idea.
Unless say you're the POTUS and you have an investment in crypto and you want everyone to "pump your bags" and you don't care about what happens to everyone else.
This is to soak retail for liquidity private equity desperately needs. Public market infra already skims from retail today, but there are only ~4300 public companies and that number continues to decline; this is to juice what they can skim via assets under management and transaction fees.
Ask why PE wants access to retail capital directly versus going public to provide exposure and gain liquidity. Why do they not want to go public? (My take: Valuations won't hold up; extend and pretend)
People Are Worried About Private Market Liquidity - https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-06-10/peo... | https://archive.today/wJ3Uf - June 10th, 2025
Private Equity Fundraising Plunges Amid Struggle to Return Cash - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-05-27/private-e... | https://archive.today/hxvzb - May 27th, 2025
Private Equity Firms Hunt for Alternate Ways to Return Investor Cash - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/newsletters/2025-05-14/privat... | https://archive.today/6UzBk - May 14th, 2025
Unlocking a potential US$3.8 trillion opportunity for private equity firms - https://www.deloitte.com/us/en/insights/industry/financial-s... - December 16th, 2024
The stock market is shrinking and Jamie Dimon is worried - https://www.cnn.com/2024/04/09/investing/premarket-stocks-tr... - April 9th, 2024
First cryptocurrency, now this. 401(k)s are looking less and less attractive. I need to find an alternative and get my money out.
Not investing advice.
401ks remain fine as investment strategy assuming there is at least a handful of index or target date funds providing the capital market exposure you're after at very low expense ratio cost. But, if your employer's plan doesn't allow in service transfers to a brokerage held IRA, those funds are going to be held captive until you separate and can wholesale transfer. Find the best deal you can within them for your time horizon of having the funds tied up.
Yes, I understand that very well, but I'm taking into account considerations beyond just that. This is piling on to my increasing sense that getting as much separation between me and the US economy as possible is the wise move.
Re-allocating away from US economic exposure is somewhat straightforward. VXUS vs VTI/ITOT, international bond funds (BNDX) vs US bond funds (BND), etc. In my opinion, the harder part is the actual infra you need for value and securities ownership: your brokerage and your bank. As a US citizen, it is a challenge to find a financial services firm outside the US who is going to be willing to custodian and manage securities and other investment assets for you without you being a bona fide resident of their jurisdiction (if you're wealthy enough, this is of course not an issue). Am I at the point where I would consider moving my assets to an entity outside of US control and perhaps acquire hard assets outside the US (real estate, physical gold, etc)? Not yet, but we are getting there slowly, and it is better to have a plan and not need it than to need a plan and not have it.
But doesn't one normally have a great deal of control over their 401(k) investments? Just because these assets are allowed doesn't mean you have to allocate to them.
You're probably right. Nonetheless, these moves (especially the cryptocurrency part) make me nervous, not only about my 401k, but they also increase my anxiety about the economy in general. I think I'll just avoid the whole issue by moving that money somewhere a bit less tied to the US economy.
This is part of the blueprint in how you will get the second great depression.
idk, its not like the housing market has ever had any issues before right? btw I was born in 2008 people keep talking about that year did something happen