Insider trading and other nefarious stock market operations seem to be on our minds lately. I guess this is natural. Despite eye-popping returns since March we are still living in the aftermath of disaster and periods of market stress have historically been periods of concern about an unequal playing field.
For example, the SEC was established in direct response to the 1929 crash in order to enforce a new set of rules that would make the stock market a fair game for all. I can’t believe that very many people thought that the crash was due to insider trading and its ilk, but I guess it seemed like a good time to clean up the the street.
One reason why we worry more about fairness when the market goes down may simply be that when the market is chugging along to new heights it is hard to see flaws in it of any kind. Everybody is fat, happy, and getting richer. It is only on the inevitable downswings that the scales fall from our eyes and we notice problems that were always there.
Read more »
The buzz article of the month seems to be Time’s Why It’s Time to Retire the 401(k) which came out October 9th. It is not to be confused with Time’s Should the 401k Be Killed? from last winter. And I am sure the serious print 
journalists at Time would be offended if I likened their work to the 60 Minutes piece from the spring Retirement Dreams Disappear With 401(k)s. (See my comments on that here.)
I suspect there are many more such articles and TV news segments out there telling us how 401(k)s are terminally broken. I don’t have the heart to search for them. These particular three say roughly the same thing, with similar quotes from experts and profiles of folks in their sixties who are poorer than they expected to be and, we presume, than they deserve to be.
There is an unavoidable, and I think completely unhelpful, undercurrent in this genre that the 401(k) is not a good idea with some serious implementation issues, or even a noble experiment that failed, but a scam perpetrated on workers by Evil Big Business. 401(k)s, we are told, were designed by our beneficent law givers in Washington as a nice side dish to the main retirement course of corporate pensions. Somehow, when we weren’t paying attention, employers pulled a switch on us and passed off the side dish as the whole meal.
Read more »
This is the second in a series inspired by a simple toy at CNNMoney that probably doesn’t deserve the attention. (See the first post in the series here.)
Question three in the financial health quiz is "How many months of expenses do you have in an emergency savings account?" The right answer is pretty 
simple:
You should keep three months’ worth of living expenses in a bank savings account or a high-yield money market fund for emergencies. If you have kids or rely on one income, make it six months.
In other words, you should have six months expenses in cash unless you are a two income household with no kids, a.k.a. DINKs.
Now I happen to think that six months is generally too much, but what makes this sort of conventional wisdom truly infuriating is its one-size-fits all nature. I am sure its defenders will say it’s just meant as a guideline or rule of thumb, but that just begs the question of why we need such a dumbed-down guideline to begin with. Can’t some things in our lives be just a little complicated?
Read more »
It seems to me I have already cleverly mocked the Wall Street Journal’s Wealth Report blog. I think I said something about how the author doesn’t actually talk to wealthy people so much as talk to people who talk to wealthy 
people, or at least talk to those who claim to talk to wealthy people. Then again, maybe that was the Times’ Wealth Matters blog. It’s all a blur to me now.
The latest installment of the Wealth Report doesn’t merely talk to people who claim to talk to rich people, it rehashes an article on Reuters whose author talked to people who claim to talk to rich people.
The post, a little confusingly entitled "Do Millionaire Investors Get Better Deals?", is about how financial firms are now more interested in the investment business of sub-millionaires. This is a change from a few years ago when, we are told, they concentrated their efforts on bigger game.
Read more »
Sometimes topics crop up in the PF blogosphere, seemingly out of nowhere, and rattle around from blog to blog for a while. Dollar cost averaging is a recent example. The Digerati Life brought it up on September 23, Lazy Man and Money responded the next day, and The Sun’s Financial Diary shared its 
thoughts on the 28th. There are probably several other mentions out there I missed.
Before I add my voice to the echo chamber, I’ll define the term. Dollar cost averaging refers to buying an investment, usually a stock or stock fund, over time in installments of equal dollar value.
It is often confused with the laudable and similar idea of regularly saving. Setting aside a certain amount of your pay every week or month may look like dollar cost averaging, but it’s not exactly the same thing. Implicit in the question "is dollar cost averaging a good idea" is the premise that there is an alternative, that you could have invested it all at once rather than slowly as you earned it.
Read more »
For example, the SEC was established in direct response to the 1929 crash in order to enforce a new set of rules that would make the stock market a fair game for all. I can’t believe that very many people thought that the crash was due to insider trading and its ilk, but I guess it seemed like a good time to clean up the the street.
Investing | Frank Curmudgeon | 
October 26, 2009 12:29 pm | 
Comments (51) 
Subscribe