Voting with My Wallet

[lwood]

As everyone here knows, I recently changed jobs, and with that, have had to change my retirement fund planning options.

Is that a bad topic? I feel strangely guilty admitting to being a pagan with some money (it seems better to admit to being a heathen with a some money), but one doesn't need much to get a bit off the top and into a retirement plan (although I admit it means living better than hand-to-mouth).

Look, I may make a little money, but if I don't have someone coming and stashing it for me pre-tax, I spend it. I know this. So: I do feel a little guilty admitting that I have it, but I'm here to make a point.

If any of you on my friends' list have a 401(k), 403(b), IRA, any of that jazz, take a look at your allocations and see if you can't direct some at a socially/environmentally responsive fund. Most of the outfits to allow for this--whoever's taking care of this money for you may have rolled their own, or may just be buying into someone else's, like Neuberger Berman's.

I daresay that putting that money there will, alas, do more long-term good than my donations to the Sierra Club and so on.

-- Lorrie

Comments

[zoe-me.livejournal.com]

really? None of my plans ever had responsive to anything funds....

[lwood.livejournal.com]

Er, well, this has probably only gone on in the past few years.

-- L

[bojojohn.livejournal.com]

I have no idea why you are feeling guilt for making money, but all I can say is I hope you continue to make it, grow it and prosper. We need MORE pagans and heathens who are financially solvent, in my opinion. I, for one, am NEVER going to apologize for how much money I make. I have earned every single penny of it...and imho, am very underpaid. ;-)

[lwood.livejournal.com]

Somehow, "heathen with money" seems all right and means that clearly the gods like me (probably a leftover Protestant meme; heathenry has a lot of these, occasionally with an attached argument that it's only stealing them back). "Pagan with money" means I'm not being sincere enough at being a dodgamn hippy or something.

I LIKE MY SHINIES!

Also, I like public transit and having a worm bin.

8-P

-- Lorrie

[bojojohn.livejournal.com]

I like shinies too! But I'm also for more pagans as CEOs. We need business leaders in our religion. Fidelity Investments and now Schwab (where we have our checking account) both have socially-conscious investments. Love having that choice.

[lwood.livejournal.com]

I concur, but I'll take socially and environmentally responsible of any stripe before short-sighted asshats of any stripe. Of course, this doesn't increase shareholder revenue...

Have you see the batch of "We can solve it!" ads? I've seen two so far: Newt Gingrich and Nancy Pelosi in one, Al Sharpton and Pat Robertson in the other. Less polarization and dualism and more responsibiliy for the non-partisan win. 8-)

-- Lorrie

[jenett]

Been doing that (about a quarter of the 403b, if I remember right off the top of my head). The only reason I don't have more is due to considerations about diversification and varied risk. (Some is in real estate, and specifically a fund that's corporate real estate, which is usually considered a stable investement, for example.)

Interesting note: the socially responsible fund is the fund that's actually performed the best over time.

(As far as guilt over it: my job basically requires me to deposit 4%, and matches it with another 8%, fully vested. It's stupid not to take advantage of that. The 'more or less requires' is due to a pension change right before I started there, and I believe it's possible to opt out, but takes significant paperwork.)

[lwood.livejournal.com]

*nod* When I got my retirement paperwork from the Mad Scientists' Home, I followed TIAA-CREF's advice for a "moderately aggressive" pie chart, and then tweaked it a bit.

I've got 60% in the responsible place (which, yep, has done pretty well), 10% in "global equities", and 30% split between two different guaranteed-income funds. I haven't looked too closely at "global equities"; it's probably exactly what I wouldn't like.

The Mad Scientists didn't match funds--they had a pension plan. Pension! ZOMG! I wanted to stay there until I'd vested (6 years) just for the guaranteed income. However, the job didn't really have much in the way of career advancement, so I would have continued to tread water (cheerfully) for another four years. I'd partly vested, so when I left, they deposited what had vested into my 403b, which I hadn't expected but surely welcomed.

Then this gig came along--the Amoral Admen match half of my contribution up to 3% of my salary. I'm contributing 15%, which is rather more than 6%.

Still, I've come late to this whole "responsible retirement" game--for the first decade of my working life, whenever things got tough, we'd cheerfully cash in the retirement plans, as "tough" means "out of work" if you're living hand-to-mouth and if you're no longer contributing to a plan, you can't take a loan against it. So, I'm making up for lost time.

-- Lorrie

[erynn999.livejournal.com]

Have you looked at the paganfinance community? teriel founded it for Pagani who want to learn more about dealing with finances, attitudes toward money, and similar issues. I'd highly recommend a look.

[lwood.livejournal.com]

Hm! I'll have to check it out--thanks!

-- Lorrie

[hljod-huskona.livejournal.com]

Our family has been growing to be more and more environmentally responsible (and healthfully responsible at that) for some time now. But I admit to have not even thought about this area of our finances before. Thank you for sharing this...I think I will begin looking into this for our own retirement funds.

...And I agree with the ladies above, there should be no reason to feel guilty for having money, I'm sure you earned it well.

[lwood.livejournal.com]

And just think! Net bags and worm bins are fun projects for the whole family!

I'm delighted to know I pointed my feebly old flashlight somewhere useful. Thanks for responding!

-- Lorrie

[keristor.livejournal.com]

Huh? Where on earth does a "pagans shouldn't have money" attitude come from? Granted that a lot of pagans don't have much spare money, but that is true for most people I know whatever their religion. I don't know any pagans (of any flavour) who have taken a vow of poverty, that seems to be principally a Christian idea ("give everything you have to the poor, then you'll be poor so they can grow spiritually by giving to you" or something like that).

[lwood.livejournal.com]

Well, no, by and large it's not a vow of poverty, although I can think of a couple people for whom this is a complex situation, e.g. one of the conditions for not falling back into their shaman sickness is that work of the spirit must come before financial security. Predictably, the dayjob suffers for this.

Me, my freaky magical stuff operates in synergy with my day job, and I'm very fond of the arrangement, especially as I've seen the other way in action.

Still, for the overwhelming majority of pagans, heathens, &c, it's not a vow of poverty or bizarre set of seemingly arbitrary rules or some ongoing preparation for the imminent collapse of civilization...it's simpler than that.

It's more that the acquisition and retention of wealth requires focussing a lot of attention on just that. It takes bandwidth, and discipline. It is not a bad thing to dedicate your available bandwidth where you will, but if you haven't sunk any into financial planning, well...

So that's one angle. If you're focussed on having a full life of spirit, you aren't focused on acquiring and retaining money with which to build wealth.

Another is the social angle. At some level, depending on which sector of the overall pagan demographic you're coming from, there's an expectation that one's paganism is best expressed by Fighting the Power. If you're opting out of the capitalist machine and all that jazz, of course you're not socking away money; that's just buying into the scheme.

Now me, I've got an anarchist streak, but I tend to favor working on change from within the system. I do not yet believe it wholly irredeemable, just in need of significant internal reorganization--socially and environmentally responsible corporate officers are a brilliant idea.

-- Lorrie

[murstein.livejournal.com]

I'm actually at the point where I manage five separate investment accounts: Two rollover IRAs, two 401(k)s, and one straight stock brokerage account. This will convert to six, come late summer, when my employee stock purchase plan hatches its first basket of eggs.

For obvious reasons, the 401(k)s are invested in the funds my employer's management lets us choose from. The IRAs are mostly invested in socially responsible funds. I say "mostly," because the SRI funds seem to think that "socially responsible bonds" are a mixture of junk bonds and subprime mortgages. I'm sufficiently selfish to make sure my money isn't left places I expect the Ragnar Lodbrok World Tour to hit in this summer's cruise. ;)

[lwood.livejournal.com]

Now, see, countgeiger is on me to roll my Mad Scientists' 403b into my Amoral Admen 401k in order to consolidate things. I, however, rather like TIAA-CREF, and want them to keep playing with my money.

What are your arguments for keeping the separate accounts?

Also, I lurve the prosperity bindrune. I see that you're grooving on Hagalaz from the Anglo-Saxon angle as "coldest of grains" (so more properly Hægl here), but given the overall picture of Hagalaz as a ka-THWOCKITA sort of thing, that gives me an overall feeling of making lemons from lemonade.

Wouldn't a Fehu popping out of an Ingwaz be more broadly applicable?

-- Lorrie

[murstein.livejournal.com]

Now, see, countgeiger is on me to roll my Mad Scientists' 403b into my Amoral Admen 401k in order to consolidate things. I, however, rather like TIAA-CREF, and want them to keep playing with my money.

Here are the accounts I'm presently managing:

* A rollover IRA at Fidelity. My original 401(k) was managed by Fidelity, and I liked how they let me do things as an investor. When my data center employer was bought out, the new corporate overlords used a 401(k) managed by Somebody Else. In the HR briefing that was part of the assimilation process, I could tell that the Somebody Else would be more hassle to work with. Because I had to be out of the 401(k) by a certain date, I had Fidelity create a rollover IRA, and then just move my existing shares from one account to another. I've had several 401(k)s managed by Other Firms, and I have yet to like them as much as Fidelity, so I keep rolling them into the Fidelity IRA when I need to vacate a 401(k).

* A non-retirement brokerage account with Scottrade. I picked them because it was easy to set up a low-value account, and they only charge $7 a trade. E*Trade, by contrast, charges $20 for the same service.

* A 401(k) with my current employer. The Borg cube that bought my employer last year just switched to Fidelity; however, if they used Someone Else, the account would obviously be there.

* A rollover IRA and a 401(k) for laureth. She's happier to let me run things than she was in trying to do it herself. Before the whole subprime meltdown began, I'd had her savings growing faster than she thought was possible. I'm still doing the best I can, but we're rowing against a stiff headwind, eh?

What are your arguments for keeping the separate accounts?

I'm of a different mindset: what's the point of consolidation? Sure, if you spread out money among dozens of firms, there will eventually be a point where you lose track. And, depending on fee schedules, there may be a point to economies of scale. You're not describing the former issue, and I'm sure you can figure out if the latter is an issue.

There is, however, one advantage to spreading your money into accounts with different firms. If the company managing one account goes bankrupt (and that seems more likely than it has since the mid-70's), that firm can only tie up (and perhaps lose) the part of your gold-hoard that's under their management; the rest will be safe.

Frankly, since you like TIAA-CREF, I'd leave that money there unless/until you can see an advantage in moving. Consolidating for the sake of consolidating is to the broker's advantage far more often than it is to the investor's.

Also, I lurve the prosperity bindrune. . . that gives me an overall feeling of making lemons from lemonade.

Actually, when I first made it, I was so new that I was thinking Fehu - Gebo. It wasn't until months later that I realized what I'd meant as a Gebo looked more like a Hagalaz, the way I'd connected the two. However, since I'd been laid off from what looks like may be the highest-paying job I'll ever hold, the lemons-from-lemonade angle isn't inappropriate, either.

[weofodthignen]

It's probably too late, but--Working Assets.

M