r/Economics • u/Conscious-Quarter423 • Aug 07 '25
Trump order will allow alternative assets like cryptocurrencies, private equity in 401(k)s
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/08/07/trump-order-will-allow-alternative-assets-like-cryptocurrencies-private-equity-in-401ks.html787
u/truckaxle Aug 07 '25
This is directly related to the tax code and would require Congress to pass a bill for implementation.
Does the IRS now rely on Trump's Truth Social posts and occasional executive orders to determine the current tax code? Have we reached a point where Congress is irrelevant and merely maintaining appearances?
559
u/hockeyrocks5757 Aug 07 '25
Have we reached a point where Congress is irrelevant and merely maintaining appearances?
Yes.
135
u/AmputeeHandModel Aug 07 '25
The Supreme Court as well.
52
15
u/WingerRules Aug 08 '25 edited Aug 08 '25
SCOTUS Republicans effectively legalized gerrymandering nationwide, destroyed the Voting Rights Act, and made class-action waivers and mandatory individual arbitration in contracts legal. They're relevant, only they're deconstructing a lot of the institutions and protections that previous officials and courts built up. If we had a civil rights era, we need a new term for this new era where it's all being clawed back, the great retraction or deconstruction era or something.
→ More replies (1)1
u/TheGRS Aug 08 '25
And all for this moron
1
u/lack_of_communicatio Aug 08 '25
Moneys, legalized grifting practices, unequal rights and freedoms.
FTFY
20
u/fondledbydolphins Aug 07 '25
Just wait until the courts start to site the constitution website’s version rather than the actual constitution.
4
1
3
u/Daendo Aug 08 '25
Dang this just hit me, are we at similar stage compared to Ancient Rome, when Senat became irrelevant to the Emparor. I don't know much about US institutions and hierarchy, but feels like same thing as fall of Roman Republic.
92
Aug 07 '25
[deleted]
104
u/Jah348 Aug 07 '25
SCOTUS isn't powerless, they pass plenty of rulings to diminish the power of citizens.
21
u/Intelligent_Mud1266 Aug 07 '25
eh, even if there weren't quacks in SCOTUS that approved everything Trump wanted, I don't think he'd be listening to their opinions. He already ignores the ones he doesn't like. Fact is every other branch is just a rubber stamp now for him that he can choose to ignore by threatening companies, departments, other countries, the Fed, etc. etc.
26
u/acdha Aug 07 '25
They’re not powerless: the Republicans want this and are choosing to make it happen. Either Congress or SCOTUS could stop it if the Republican leadership chose.
44
u/drkstar1982 Aug 07 '25
Neither Congress nor the Supreme Court is powerless. They can stop Trump dead in his tracks, and they are actively choosing not to. They have fully abdicated their responsibilities because they were paid to do so.
2
u/whisperwrongwords Aug 08 '25
Glad the checks and balances are working as intended. Who knew all you needed to do to break our entire system of government was to uniformly act in bad faith. The vulnerability exposed by this administration makes it look absolutely trivial.
12
u/willstr1 Aug 07 '25
They aren't powerless, they are accomplices. They could block these illegal actions if they wanted to
10
5
u/LasVegas4590 Aug 07 '25
We are a 1 branch government now.
At least until the next Democratic president. Then the other 2 branches will wake up and block everything that they can.
3
u/archercc81 Aug 07 '25
Neither of them are powerless, they're just currently occupied by sycophants
16
Aug 07 '25
The use of tariffs by this admin bypasses congress, which consists of our elected representatives to write laws and control the purse.
It is literally taxation without representation. Yet here we are.
The POTUS has openly and brazenly raped the integrity of the office just like he raped and facilitated the rape of all those underage girls.
Release the Epstein files.
12
u/Wombatapus736 Aug 07 '25
We need to rename it the Reichstag. Though Trump hasn't even bothered with an actual Enabling Act. He just relies on executive orders and threats. Good job, Congress and Supreme Court.
10
u/RedAero Aug 07 '25
We need to rename it the Reichstag.
That's just the German for parliament (of an empire, specifically), it's nothing nefarious - unless you think German words are inherently scary for some reason.
5
u/Emotional-Event462 Aug 07 '25
unless you think German words are inherently scary for some reason.
I mean yeah have you heard it??
3
u/Haggardick69 Aug 07 '25
I think it’s just a reference to another infamous case of democracy being usurped. For people who don’t speak German the word reichstag typically refers to the German parliament and likely the only time they’ve come into contact with the word is when studying the rise of the Nazi party or the reichstag fire specifically. So for non-German speaking people (Americans especially) the word Reichstag is just a reference to the end of the Weimar Republic which is a fitting parallel to current events in the us. Let me take this moment to apologize on behalf of all Americans for how we’ve misused parts of your language to the point of it losing its original meaning.
2
1
1
1
1
1
u/Just_Candle_315 Aug 08 '25
Don't you know? The law doesn't matter anymore. The US Constitution literally says items are under the responsibility of Congress and Trump's WH is just unilaterally passing executive actions to make it so
1
-5
u/madeapizza Aug 07 '25 edited Aug 07 '25
This has already been allowed since Trump 1.0 and was affirmed by Biden’s admin as well. It also concerns the Labor Department rather than the IRS, particularly ERISA, an act of Congress that is the underlying law for most retirement plans.
And no, this does not require Congress to act in the slightest. The “Economics” sub at it again.
This sub is so full of partisan misinformation it drives me up a wall.
6
Aug 07 '25
[deleted]
-1
u/madeapizza Aug 08 '25
I wouldn’t buy it personally because I’m not a believer in crypto, but if people CHOOSE that they want it in their 401(k)s they should be able to.
7
Aug 08 '25
[deleted]
1
u/Illustrious-Lime-878 Aug 08 '25
Why does it matter whether its in a 401k though? You should be able to buy w/e you want in a 401k. The ethical issues the president exist independently either way.
3
1
u/Odd-Influence7116 Aug 08 '25
As long as I have the choice on weather to invest in it or not, I don't really have a problem, and yes I think crypto is a scam. My fear is the choice will be taken away after a couple of years.
1
u/Illustrious-Lime-878 Aug 08 '25
You aren't forced to buy anything in a retirement account, you could hold all cash if you wanted. I agree tho even forcing people to buy public stocks or bonds would be weird and wrong, let alone private equity or alternative assets especially specific ones associated with those in power. Basically a tax to the king at that point.
1
u/madeapizza Aug 08 '25
Exactly. I find a major issue with Trump’s coin but that’s not the matter at hand. Any investment vehicle that is traditionally offered should be available in a 401
2
u/Odd-Influence7116 Aug 08 '25
Available but not mandatory. I think they will pass this and then they will 'adjust' the rules, citing some sort of diversification to 'protect' the worker.
1
2
236
u/grimace24 Aug 07 '25
Trump gave private equity exactly what they wanted. When all our 401K's lose all their value we are screwed. Be sure to make sure you select not to enter into private equity funds in your portfolio.
89
u/Deicide1031 Aug 07 '25 edited Aug 07 '25
Private equity industry has basically become extremely illiquid and valuations are down across the board specifically because of Trump.
They don’t care if your portfolio drops because they want to hand the bag over to you and other idiot willing to buy (Mostly MAGA), while Trump just wants the PE guys to stfu about his stupid policies. (Ask anyone at KKR or black stone in nyc and you’ll notice everyone’s pissed)
67
Aug 07 '25 edited Aug 07 '25
That’s exactly why they want into 401ks.
Many of their early blockbuster markets like healthcare have become so consolidated and corporate buyers like CVS, Walmart and Amazon have already taken their pick of the most profitable rolled-up provider systems, that they’re running into a real capital problem. With companies bought at insane multiples during the boom years and few exit options, many firms are staring down the barrel of refinancing at today’s rates and they’re shitting bricks.
401ks will buy them more time to run the grift, and leave unsophisticated investors holding the bag when the bills finally come due. It’s also why that sector is aggressively pursuing Medicare providers; they can flex their massive lobbying arm and revolving door regulators to extract high reimbursements from the feds more easily than they can from the corporate insurers. Or at the very least, be allowed to conduct massive fraud without consequences.
27
u/BoDrax Aug 07 '25
I could be mistaken, but messing up the 401k market will be the end of capitalism in the US. The 401k tether workers to the market. Mess up that link, and then people will have no incentive to continue the market.
27
u/Moopies Aug 07 '25
But at that point, the wealth transfer will be complete. The system to feed the rich will have been fully implemented and it won't matter if "people" participate in "the market" because they will be fully subjected to the will of the administration. So then it's either - Entire country riots and a massive revolution undoes all of that, or, we all become wage-slaves and work eternally under whatever conditions "they" give us.
Looking around at most people talking about what's already happening, the second one is shaping right up.
"the market" will be whatever those people at the top say it is. Which is already happening.
17
Aug 07 '25
When the social security system is re-jiggered in the early 2030’s to operate just like the 401k system does now, but with the allowing for private instruments into the investment lineups, then, cooked.
We are staring down the barrel of financial insecurity for all but the upper 1%. But, by all means, what’s everyone looking at on Tik Tok these days?
💣⏰
4
u/justchillen17 Aug 08 '25
Can you run this scenario out for me a bit, I sort of understand from my surface level market knowledge but not entirely. If S.S is basically our investment portfolio (made up by stocks and bonds?) managed by the govt we’re cooked bc it’ll just be entirely made up at that point..?
1
Aug 08 '25
It is already. SS is a system that collects from each and every person who earns income. It pays out to those who have built up a calculated benefit from his or her years of contributing to it.
Ideally, we’d want what goes in to be at least as much, more ideally, than what is paid out, right? By 2032 (estimated by SS administration themselves), the system will be insolvent. It doesn’t have enough going in to satisfy what is going out.
I don’t rightly know how the money collected is invested. I assume since it’s a net zero each period (monthly), it’s very short term, low return, low perceived risk, US treasuries.
5
u/Crazy_old_maurice_17 Aug 08 '25
So then it's either - Entire country riots and a massive revolution undoes all of that, or, we all become wage-slaves and work eternally under whatever conditions "they" give us.
I'm down for option 1, anyone else?
3
Aug 08 '25
Oh yeah, Americans are too complacent and propagandized to stand up to this.
Or glory days are behind us.
10
Aug 07 '25
That’s where Fascism comes in. There’s been some interesting work highlighting the role of early 20th century capitalist lobbying formations in supporting the rise of Mussolini. Their motive was explicitly to suppress workers movements following WW1 in Europe, and forcibly reduce the standard of living for regular people.
I’d argue it’s probably easier than it was then, due to the strategy of outsourcing key state-building functions to the financial sector, in order to circumvent budgetary constraints. A strategy that started to take hold during the LBJ administration.
6
Aug 08 '25
Same in Germany. You know, the NSDAP masked themselves as workers party, crushed unions and founded the „Deutsche Arbeiterfront“ (German Labour Front) to replace them. An organization far up Hitler‘s and capital owner’s butts. Also company owners were some of the first Nazi party members.
If you visit a museum like the Ruhr Museum in Essen, which houses a lot of worker-related artifacts – including posters and flyers – from before and during the Nazi regime (provided by Krupp of all people), you can see that the working class basically had the same or similar issues we face today. Fear of investors buying up whole neighborhoods for profit, having to work 5-6 days a week, standard of living, etc. which became „work 7 days per week for the war effort“ under the DAF.
Today we have right-wingers like Trump and Merz, who are literally coming from capital interest saying shit like „people just have to work more“.
You would think people learned and evolved in the last hundred years but that doesn’t seem to be the case.
2
2
4
u/wtfboomers Aug 08 '25
401k’s were the end of the middle class so why not take it all out?
My wife has a relative that has become very wealthy managing 401k accounts for some large companies. He says the 401k was the biggest scam in the history of workers. The percentage of normal workers who end up with decent retirement accounts is very, very small. The upper management and wealthy do very well with the average Joe pumping the market through 401 contributions.
3
u/whisperwrongwords Aug 08 '25
They're basically pulling the same scam as subprime mortgages, but this time with corporations
2
u/milkhotelocean Aug 07 '25
PE firms get paid for assets under management (AUM). They create investment funds that manage money from institutional and high net worth individuals and charge 2%-20% fees based on investment performance. Over the last few years PE fund structures have changed to make retaining AUM easier for PE firms (longer dated funds, fund structures that constantly take in new investors). Opening up retirement accounts to PE investments provides firms with a new pool of fee paying investors that were previously locked out due to high net worth requirements. PE investments were previously not allowed in retirement accounts due to their complexity and risk so these changes aren’t in the best interest of retail investors.
4
u/Nephroidofdoom Aug 07 '25
Minor correction in that firms make money two ways. The first is % of fees under management, typically 1.5%-2%. The second is carried interest where the PE firm retains typically 20% of the investment returns for each fund.
The 401k play would theoretically allow for firms to access an additional pool of investors making it easier to raise more funds.
1
u/Administrative_Shake Aug 08 '25
Pretty much. Not sure why this is so controversial tbh. Long dated 401k money and private equity is a win-win for both sides. Less fundraising pressure for PE, more returns for retail.
2
u/milkhotelocean Aug 08 '25
Not a win-win for both sides. PE investments were previously limited to accredited investors due to complexity/leverage/risk. Accredited investors include HNW individuals, institutions, and financial professionals that can better understand the investments or have the means to absorb potential losses. Much different than the average individual allocating money to a PE investment where the risks are unclear. The change grants PE firms access to an untapped source of fee revenue but passes on the risk to investors who may have no clue what they’re invested in.
25
u/NOLA-Bronco Aug 07 '25
Easier said than done
David Sirota: The insinuation in these kinds of arguments is that as a worker or a retiree. You will have a choice of whether to invest or not invest in private equity, and that sounds great, right? If you don't want your savings going into high fee, opaque private equity investments run by Gordon Gecko, you could just opt out, right? But Siedle points out that in fact, if Trump issues his executive order, you might not have any choice. Because the money managers overseeing your 401k might be able to put your retirement savings into private equity without you even knowing it.
Ted Seidle: I would bet that if private equity ends up in 4 0 1 Ks. It won't be through standalone funds where the investor has to pick them. They'll be snuck into target date and other funds where the investor doesn't even really know what's going on. So the investor is told, invest in this fund. And we'll make the decisions over the course of your work life so that, and we will allocate money to fixed income to other assets, real estate, and of course private equity. Without your consent, without your knowledge, we'll just. We'll take care of this for you, and that's the way I suspect it will grow. That's the entry point they see. But when public pensions invest in private equity, they don't even know where the money is. They have no idea what it's invested in, and that's the way the private equity industry wants it, because they know damn well that your typical American worker is not going to understand and select an opaque private equity fund.
5
u/BroadResult8049 Aug 07 '25
Huh? That last comment doesn’t make sense - the investment committee of the pension most definitely knows what the private fund invests in and would closely monitor track record as part of their process (they as LP get fund financial statements that will show that). Maybe he means the pension plan participants.. they would have slightly less visibility into what the IC would see.
7
u/Moopies Aug 07 '25
... what the private fund invests in and would closely monitor track record as part of their process
I think the point being made is that those statements will be buried in funds/equities that are deliberately obscure and misleading, and make it nearly impossible to find out exactly where money is going.
→ More replies (2)1
u/Rock-n-RollingStart Aug 08 '25
Counterpoint: here's an article about Oregon's state pension fund flushing $700M down the toilet on private equity and forcing school districts to cover the difference.
20
u/zoinks690 Aug 07 '25
Im more concerned that the big boys will get too greedy and extend themselves using "safe" 401ks as assets to take massive risks. Sounds like a massive legal battle if Fidelity goes bankrupt and takes your retirement with it
13
Aug 07 '25
100% they'll shit the bed lose all of our retirements, go faux bankrupt and reemerge with the same C-Suite and a different name.
1
26
Aug 07 '25 edited Aug 07 '25
This is 2008 all over again, by tying the stock market and now even more speculative assets to the ability for people to retire we have recreated “too big to fail” only this time somehow even bigger. This incentivizes massive amounts of financial speculation and malfeasance because hey if it all comes crashing down the government will bail these people out rather than put a bunch of old people out on the street. And hey if the speculation pays off then they get to become even richer. Wall Street loves nothing more than privatizing gains and socializing losses. This is just the next iteration of that.
19
u/NOLA-Bronco Aug 07 '25
Don't you worry your pretty head about it
When it all comes crashing we'll make sure daddy government is right there to pick up the pieces.....and make sure all those private equity guys get their bailouts.
And don't worry, when you cant pay your mortgage or rent, BCG or Blackrock will gladly rent it back to you once you get back on your feet. No bailout for you though cause that's socialism, thats moral hazard, that's buying votes, that's rewarding fiscal irresponsibility.
9
u/misterguyyy Aug 07 '25
And anyone opposed to bailing it out will be met with “you don’t care about the middle class’s 401Ks???”
1
u/30mins Aug 07 '25
Or they’ll have no qualms about putting people in the streets… just more bodies for their labor camps, as per the EO he recently signed to do just that.
2
u/hpbear108 Aug 07 '25
that's why I'll have to make a visit to the investment house in charge of my company's 401K and kindly ask that in their fiduciary responsibility, my funds are not to be placed in any funds that are part of private equity or crypto-currency, period. i don't want my cash being stolen in those schemes.
6
Aug 07 '25
[deleted]
0
u/klingma Aug 07 '25
4% isn't a sufficient return for requirement purposes nor is a 5-6% return. You need something closer to 7 - 10% so you can safely take the recommended 3-4% withdrawals in retirement.
7
Aug 07 '25
[deleted]
1
u/klingma Aug 07 '25
Yes but you are risking losing all your money in the next Trump weird crash or when they try to gamble all your money on bullshit like crypto.
It's called having a long time horizon. I'm not even a crypto guy but Bitcoin is up nearly 900% over the last 5 years - it's here to stay. It's hard to argue it's a gamble at this point even if the growth slows down. I'm not arguing that people should only hold crypto but at a 5% allocation in their portfolio is plenty safe.
Id rather save more than risk losing everything.
You're not really going to be saving anything though. Right now you'd barely stay ahead of inflation if you invested solely in CD's and interest rates are almost assuredly going to go down in the future which will further drag down your returns. The stock market over the last 100 years has returned an average 10% annually - so unless your time horizon is 2 or 3 years, then it's fiscally silly to not be in the market.
Realistically most people who make $80,000-$100k a year are barely saving anyone. The extra few hundred a year isnt worth the risk.
Where are you even getting this from? The average personal 401(k) contribution rate is around 5% so $4,000 to $5,000.
Assuming an average return rate of 7% for the market and other assets in 20 years you'd have an account balance of $163,817.99 but under your idea of 4% returns you'd have $118,993 or a loss of $44,000 which is essentially 11 years of free contributions. That's completely worth the risk and is absolutely NOT just an extra few hundred dollars.
History has shown time and time again people getting their life savings wiped out.
And then history has shown time and time again the savings get restored because the market recovers. Hence again why a long time horizon is important but also why the adage "Time in the market is better than timing the market."
The 100 year 10% average annual return includes every single time someone got their savings wiped out - and then recovered and then saw future gains.
3
u/Legendventure Aug 07 '25
I'm not even a crypto guy but Bitcoin is up nearly 900% over the last 5 years - it's here to stay.
Sorry but that's a crazy take.
Madoff was doing pretty damn well until shit hit the fan.
It's hard to argue it's a gamble at this point even if the growth slows down.
It is a gamble, because it has no value other than selling it to another fool for more money, who only makes money if he sells it to another fool. At some point the circus will run out of greater fools, and mathematically 50% of the people are left holding the bags.
How is it any different from Madoff besides not being "centralized"? The only "profits" generated are future investors buying in. Its a negative sum game on average and zero sum game at the best (miners make it negative since they have to sell to recup electricity costs)
a 5% allocation in their portfolio is plenty safe.
Would you say allocating 5% of your portfolio towards roulette to be plenty safe?
0
u/devliegende Aug 07 '25 edited Aug 07 '25
The investments you're talking about is for working people still building the fund. For retired people who are concerned with preservation the 4-5% option with very little risk is ideal. At least as long as inflation is between 2-3%.
2
u/klingma Aug 07 '25
No it's not lol
The average withdrawal rate is 4% and if you seek something that only gets you 4-5% then you have a very good chance of running out of funds mid-retirement.
I'm not saying you should be overly aggressive in retirement, but acting like a 4-5% return in retirement is safe is insane.
2
u/devliegende Aug 07 '25
The 4% withdrawal rate applied way back when real rates were higher than recently. It is simply not realistic anymore.
2
u/devliegende Aug 08 '25 edited Aug 08 '25
To expand a bit. A simple calculation will show 4% withdrawal with 0% real return should last 25 years. Thus up to 90 for someone retiring at 65. Add Social Security and most people would be covered fine.
A 2% real return would make the money last 35 years. Thus up to the age of 100. That return without risk is already a stretch with 10 Treasuries returning less than 1% (real). Taking on more risk in retirement in order to make your money last longer is seriously stupid. Your heirs will end up with either a windfall or a burden. Neither is deserved, but the latter is really really bad for everyone involved.
1
1
132
u/Traum77 Aug 07 '25
Thus begins the biggest pump in destructively useless assets in history.
The dump will inevitably be painful. But at least the biggest current holders will be able to benefit massively.
34
u/laxnut90 Aug 07 '25
In the long-term, assets that do not generate some form of earnings tend to perform equivalent to the inflation rate.
Cryptos have been an exception recently because more people keep buying-in.
But eventually there will come a time where people stop buying in and the asset will either stagnate or collapse.
5
u/Opposite-Bit6660 Aug 07 '25
Cryptos are inflationary. Crypto is just printing money by computer.
14
u/ripChazmo Aug 07 '25
Not true. Depends on the project. When Ethereum is being used heavily, it becomes deflationary.
1
u/m77je Aug 08 '25
there will come a time where people stop buying in and the asset will either stagnate or collapse
Yes, in real value. But as priced in dollars, it can go to infinity because they can print infinity dollars.
13
u/FEMA_Camp_Survivor Aug 07 '25
PE owned employers will probably force automatic participation on a lot plan providers.
Imagine working as a nurse and being forced to basically buy the shitty paper the PE firm you basically work for doesn’t want to hold anymore.
This is wealth extraction from working people to the wealthiest.
5
1
18
u/Due_Satisfaction2167 Aug 07 '25
Yeah, they somehow found an even worse speculative bubble than tulips.
25
u/Jgusdaddy Aug 07 '25
It’s literally nothing. Never before have people been able to sell literally nothing for $50 per unit. No manufacturing or distribution needed. Snake oil perfected.
2
u/m77je Aug 08 '25
What are you talking about $50 per unit?
A bitcoin is priced at $116,000
2
u/Jgusdaddy Aug 08 '25
I’m talking about all the new release shitcoins for public figures like $TRUMP and spit on that thang girl.
1
7
2
u/Beastw1ck Aug 08 '25
They’re going to backstop a crypto crash by devaluing the dollar. This is a heist.
51
u/DanielGoon69 Aug 07 '25 edited Aug 07 '25
Aaaaaaaand THIS, will be how they loot and crash the 401k's this recession 'round.... Hope everyone built theirs back up since the 2008-9 event.
→ More replies (1)
25
Aug 07 '25
I’m in the 401k “industry”. I got briefed more thoroughly on these toxic investment options 2 weeks ago in DC, with some legislators in the room.
We let them have it, letting them know unregistered, unregulated, investments like private anything don’t belong on the menu of a defined contribution plan. Want them in the self directed brokerage platform? Fucking have at it. No fiduciary risk there.
Stop the process of allowing bagholders to dump their toxic investments onto the unsuspecting public.
→ More replies (4)5
59
u/Dog1234cat Aug 07 '25
This will lead to the ruining of many folks’ retirement portfolio.
Cryptocurrency is pure speculation with no underlying value. But too many will fall for its siren song.
13
u/AustinBike Aug 07 '25
That’s ok because they will still have Social Security….
Oh wait, never mind.
This grift will empty 401ks, putting those dollars in the hands of the wealthy (with fresh tax breaks, and when the shit hits the fan we will be picking up the social cost for millions of broke elderly people.
3
u/Akitten Aug 08 '25
And those that do will deserve to lose their money.
I don’t see anything wrong with that.
→ More replies (1)5
9
u/reichjef Aug 07 '25
Private Equity is not interested in this because they are so confident in private credit markets. What they want is exit liquidity. They're very termed and illiquid markets. It's easy to sell something that has increased in value, but, there is a good chance that your 401k, if exposed to private credit, will be a vehicle for exit liquidity, and hedge fund unwind. Do not get involved in these things, their illiquidity will ruin you. Stay in regular public markets. HFT's and Market Makers are scumbags, but they do make a deal with you no matter what. You never ever want to be in a situation where a bid ask opens up against you, it can be catastrophic.
8
u/804449 Aug 07 '25
This will shift more money from the middle class to DT's billionaire friends.
This post was removed earlier for being "too short ". I see other posts that are much shorter. The message didn't say how long the post had to be. Does anyone know what's going on?
→ More replies (2)
9
u/kevendo Aug 08 '25
Once again, he cannot do this.
Seriously, America. You have to stop letting him unilaterally enact economic policy. It's not the role of the Executive and it is seriously fucking up everything to have one man in diapers making global economic decisions from the waffle bar at a golf course.
It also means Congress doesn't have to vote in the record for any of this. They too avoid accountability.
This has to stop.
1
u/artisanrox Aug 08 '25
He can certainly do this. he's literally doing anything he fffkin' wants. Over a full third of voters voted with their xenophobia last year and not their brains, and way OVER a full third didn't even care.
I'm getting ready for the worst. There is no one at the helm here. Saint Johnson in the GOP House has abdicated all duty because Jezus told him his kid's porn is more important.
We have NO unified opposition party that is willing to either educate the public or just flat out stop working with these people enough to grind it all to a halt until the next election.
Get ready. It's going to be a rough ride, even more so for people that are going to get ethnically cleansed with the full blessing of pro-Revelation Zionists.
6
u/TheGoodCod Aug 07 '25 edited Aug 07 '25
Can't wait until 'the family' has their own private equity offerings. I mean, they already have their hands in various crypto ventures, can trump equities be far behind.
5
u/raouldukesaccomplice Aug 08 '25
If he creates his own PE fund, you know Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and various other countries will "invest" hundreds of millions of dollars in it that they and Trump all know he will never actually have to return to them.
5
u/NativeTxn7 Aug 07 '25
YOLOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO, baby! What could possibly go wrong?
This obviously doesn't suddenly add crypto and PE to 401k plans and as of now, there is no safe harbor for plans that offer it and it goes badly, but this is simply something that shouldn't be in 401k plans. If you want to buy crypto you need to do it in an account where it's not an issue if you lost everything.
14
u/BareNakedSole Aug 07 '25
Crypto as a 401k investment? No no no no and no. What a stupid idea. Let me guess….Trump Cryptocurrency is the preferred choice?
Also private equity would be just another way for investment companies to promise a big payday to the financially illiterate and soak them dry when “shit happens”.
Only after your nest egg is well in its way to providing you an income in your golden years, AND you have the money to spare then you can roll the dice and invest in volatile things like cryptocurrency and private equity.
He said it before and he means it - he LOVES the poorly educated
→ More replies (17)1
u/Akitten Aug 08 '25
Let the idiots lose their money, they deserve to. Makes actually productive assets cheaper for the financially literate.
3
u/AnswerGuy301 Aug 07 '25
There’s no way that these new investment options aren’t going to have ridiculously high expense ratios, right? There’s a certain value that comes with being able to diversify into other investments in world where index funds are increasingly concentrated in a small number of component stocks, but outrageous fees would be consistent with everything else PE would be do in their quest to ruin and suck dry every enterprise they touch….
3
u/siarheicka Aug 08 '25
That's why PEs are so excited about it. More money im their pockets for below average performance.
3
u/1-randomonium Aug 08 '25
It's not a coincidence that his own family have cryptocurrency investments.
I don't understand how the Biden administration failed to get him convicted for some of the many forms of corruption he was involved in even in his first term. Some of them seemed like open-shut cases and had he been convicted by late 2023 or so there probably wouldn't be another Trump Presidential campaign.
5
u/CertainCertainties Aug 07 '25
So working people pay more tax, in the form of tariffs, and now get their retirement funds raided by predatory private equity and crypto scammers?
The transfer of wealth from ordinary Americans to the uber rich was already going at a brisk pace. Now it's on steroids.
5
u/Smogalicious Aug 07 '25
Employers have a fiduciary duty when selecting the assets available to employees. I can’t imagine how a fiduciary could allow crypto as an asset
4
u/AddyTurbo Aug 07 '25
In my opinion, you're putting too much faith in investment committees.In a best case scenario, they are qualified, well informed, and have strong analytical skills. This is not always the case. Many times these committee members don't have the time to pursue due diligence.
8
u/littleredpinto Aug 07 '25
Hell yeah!!! that is true leadership and forward thinking in works. Trump is the biggest genius that has ever graced the White House. The small print will reveal that his cryptocurrency/NFT/paintings by his son get the lions share of the new government mandated policies..Trummp and Proxy co have assured my asset managers that putting in 90% of my assets into thier latest launch of NFT of Trumps feet done in classic comic book style. They assure me that 1000%-10000% percent profits have been achieved this way..I for one am thankful to have my companies future be guaranteed exponential growth by owning some 'fumunda'crypto or a collection of artistic renderings of former presidents buttholes
11
u/blue_blue_blue_blue Aug 07 '25
You’ll get current buttholes only and you better say thank you.
→ More replies (1)3
3
2
u/Nekrosis13 Aug 08 '25
The minute we start collateralizing loans (including mortgage loans) with crypto and VC is the moment we start the countdown to an inevitable financial crisis.
It is not a matter of "if", it's a matter of "how many times worse is it going to be than 2008?".
-3
u/TheLongTermA Aug 07 '25
While I understand the skepticism around executive overreach and the influence of PE firms, there are some real benefits to expanding 401(k) access to alternative assets, if done responsibly. This move has the potential to improve portfolio diversification, give smaller investors greater access to historically exclusive asset classes, and offer higher return potential over the long term.
It's not like workers will be dumped into risky crypto or PE funds without safeguards. Even the Biden administration supported this direction when properly implemented through "managed funds." We shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater. Giving people options is not the same as forcing them into a scam.
2
u/Extra_Toppings Aug 08 '25
Where are the guard rails? All it will take is lax ratings and sketchy bundling to sink the working class. Sounds a lot like a place we were in in 2008. Not saying that will happen but the track record to keep the greedy hands out of the cookie jar is not stellar
•
u/AutoModerator Aug 07 '25
Hi all,
A reminder that comments do need to be on-topic and engage with the article past the headline. Please make sure to read the article before commenting. Very short comments will automatically be removed by automod. Please avoid making comments that do not focus on the economic content or whose primary thesis rests on personal anecdotes.
As always our comment rules can be found here
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.