Google -- WSJ -- November 16, 2019

Excellent example why the print edition is so much more useful than the electronic edition, but there's nothing we can do about it. It's water under the bridge. It is what it is. I'll come back to this article also.

From The WSJ, November 15, 2019. Unfortunately it's behind a paywall, but it's one of the few subscriptions I have. In addition, it's "free" at Starbucks.

I'll come back to this one later.

******************************

Oh-Oh

Regardless of one's feelings about Ken Fisher, he's opened the eyes of a lot of investors -- those who are paying attention -- about annuities.

Now this, in this week's Barron's: companies have done well getting workers into 401(k). Now they're trying to help people spend them.

A typical-length article for Barron's. But about a third of the way through, the phrase, "additional fee," and then, it started to sound like the writer was taking about converting 401(k)s to annuities.

Wow, wow, wow -- about two-thirds into the article that's exactly what it turned into: a spiel to cnvert one's 401(k) into an annuity if the laws were changed. The writer "complains" that there are only two ways to withdraw money from a 401(k): a lump sump or RMDs.

Disingenuous. There is no maximum on RMDs. One can take distributions (after 70 1/2 years old) of any amount and whenever one wants -- as long as the RMD is met. And, of course, taxes would be forthcoming.

But that would be true of an annuity also (trust me on this one) and, of course, for "an additional fee" to the manager of the annuity.

It looks like this story was a press release from an insurance company disguised as a news story.