Worth keeping in mind his pension is definitely in stocks (and other investments too, of course). So he doesn’t own stocks, but the portion of the pension he owns is stocks.
I do (2 in fact) and they’re locked in. I can’t do anything with them or to them except add more money (that I don’t have).
I’d like to know who made the rule that RRSPs, 401Ks, etc MUST be invested in the stock market instead of GICs or other forms of investment. Because if I had a choice I wouldn’t have one red cent in stocks.
That doesn’t sound right, are you sure? The choice for investing in the bonds usually looks very similar to the others. Not saying you’re wrong, just that it is peculiar.
I’m Canadian, so when I transferred one of the RRSPs to my bank after I left that job, the bank showed me the paperwork that stated the RRSP had to be invested in stocks.
Ah, okay. I don’t know how it works in Canada. In the US our 401ks are more like mutual funds. We have a few options we can choose. Many of them track popular stock indices (like S&P 500). Our IRAs can invest directly into stocks though.
I also don’t know if you have to invest in the Canadian stock market or can invest in any, but there are definitely ETFs (which you buy and sell as stocks) that track bonds. So even if you can’t directly get bonds you can still essentially get bonds.
The scope of this is a little more in depth than I’m prepared to write in a Lemmy comment right now, but you can get many different types of bonds as ETFs. You can get target date ones that are the closest to the traditional bond experience (guaranteed return if you hold until maturation). You can get ETFs that are a mix of government bonds. You can even get ones that are a mix of all types of bonds (including corporate bonds).
All that to say, if you must invest “in stocks” you can still probably get some that are close to bonds.
If you have a 401k, HSA, or other common financial accounts offered by employers, you most likely have money in the stock market. Usually it’s an indexed mutual fund of some kind.
I haven’t read the article, but usually when people like this don’t have any stocks, it’s to avoid a conflict of interest, but they do potentially own something like a whole market etf that’s being managed by a 3rd party. Something like XGRO
That varies though. Some really do have nothing.
Edit: And while it seems like in this case it’s true to the intent, technically, owning an ETF share isn’t owning a stock. You don’t own the underlying stocks with ETFs
Me neither, Tim. Never have, never plan to buy any. If somehow I inherit some stock, I won’t know what to do with it.
Do you have a retirement account like a 401k or IRA? That’s almost certainly invested in stock.
I do not.
That’s honestly terrible finances unless you have a pension like Walz
Worth keeping in mind his pension is definitely in stocks (and other investments too, of course). So he doesn’t own stocks, but the portion of the pension he owns is stocks.
I did, but I cashed it out for food and shelter.
So you own stocks of food.
I do (2 in fact) and they’re locked in. I can’t do anything with them or to them except add more money (that I don’t have).
I’d like to know who made the rule that RRSPs, 401Ks, etc MUST be invested in the stock market instead of GICs or other forms of investment. Because if I had a choice I wouldn’t have one red cent in stocks.
You can invest in bonds instead if you want to. Less risk, less reward.
I’m in my 30s so my investment portfolio is around 90% stocks and 10% bonds at the moment.
According to the terms (both are from former employers) the stock market is it. I have no other options.
That doesn’t sound right, are you sure? The choice for investing in the bonds usually looks very similar to the others. Not saying you’re wrong, just that it is peculiar.
I’m Canadian, so when I transferred one of the RRSPs to my bank after I left that job, the bank showed me the paperwork that stated the RRSP had to be invested in stocks.
Ah, okay. I don’t know how it works in Canada. In the US our 401ks are more like mutual funds. We have a few options we can choose. Many of them track popular stock indices (like S&P 500). Our IRAs can invest directly into stocks though.
I also don’t know if you have to invest in the Canadian stock market or can invest in any, but there are definitely ETFs (which you buy and sell as stocks) that track bonds. So even if you can’t directly get bonds you can still essentially get bonds.
The scope of this is a little more in depth than I’m prepared to write in a Lemmy comment right now, but you can get many different types of bonds as ETFs. You can get target date ones that are the closest to the traditional bond experience (guaranteed return if you hold until maturation). You can get ETFs that are a mix of government bonds. You can even get ones that are a mix of all types of bonds (including corporate bonds).
All that to say, if you must invest “in stocks” you can still probably get some that are close to bonds.
If you have a 401k, HSA, or other common financial accounts offered by employers, you most likely have money in the stock market. Usually it’s an indexed mutual fund of some kind.
I haven’t read the article, but usually when people like this don’t have any stocks, it’s to avoid a conflict of interest, but they do potentially own something like a whole market etf that’s being managed by a 3rd party. Something like XGRO
That varies though. Some really do have nothing.
Edit: And while it seems like in this case it’s true to the intent, technically, owning an ETF share isn’t owning a stock. You don’t own the underlying stocks with ETFs
Yeah, I don’t own stocks. I just have a 401k and shares of VTI, VXUS, and VOO in my IRA and traditional brokerage. But I don’t own stocks!
To be honest though, I don’t see a problem (or at least as big of a problem) with politicians owning total market index funds.
Oh I totally agree with you on this. There’s no conflict of interest in that case so why not.