Post #50939 by albaby1 on the US Policy board

Halls of Shrewd'm / US Policy ❤

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (160)

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

No. of Recommendations: 6

Society requires some amount of risk to move forward since there's never any such thing as Utopia.

Sure. "Some risk," not "all risk." You're allowed to have 401(k)'s, which often give the investor the opportunity to allocate resources themselves (some risk) - but not all types of investments are allowed in 401(k)'s (not all risk).

And, thankfully, we already have exactly what you're asking for in terms of a wonderful incentive placed on the financial houses to NOT allow for betting on Red 11 in 401(k) portfolios.

Could you elaborate? Your case upthread didn't stand for that proposition. The financial houses are not allowed to themselves bet on Red 11 in a defined benefit plan (not a 401(k)) in a case where that would be inconsistent with the instructions that were given to the financial house (and thus a breach of fiduciary duty). Nothing in that would prohibit a financial house from allowing bets on Red 11 and executing them if the plan beneficiary asked to place that bet. Was there something else?

Post New | Post Reply | Report Post | Recommend It!

Print the post

Unthreaded | Threaded | Whole Thread (160)

Prev | Next

Announcements

US Policy FAQ

Contact Shrewd'm
Contact the developer of these message boards.

A community forum supporting civilized, and highly helpful, self-educating investors that come together for Shrewdness and merry spirits. These message boards closely follow the look and feel of the old message boards at boards.fool.com prior to the boards redirected to discussion.fool.com. Shrewd'm is not affiliated with the comprehensive and excellent investment website, The Motley Fool (TMF), in any way. The Shrewd commmunity here has owed, and continues to owe, gratitude to The Motley Fool for nurturing a culture of jovial irreverence towards Wall St, and that tradition will continue here.