Gov. Tim Walz doesn't own a single stock
Gov. Tim Walz doesn't own a single stock
- His disclosures, both from his final year in Congress and his time as Minnesota governor, also show no mutual funds, bonds, private equities, or other securities.
- No book deals or speaking fees or crypto or racehorse interests.
- Not even real estate. The couple sold their Mankato, Minnesota, home after moving into the governor's mansion, for below the $315k asking price).
You're viewing a single thread.
This is some bullshit. He invests heavily into private pensions, which invest heavily in the stock market.
This is like saying you don't invest in the stock market because you have a 401k. You're still absolutely invested in the stock market even if it's index funds recommended by your plan administrator. Your net worth dips every time the market dips.
At least he's not in a position to buy or sell individual stocks, but he's still got his finances tied up in the health of the overall market, and depending on the pension funds, potentially tilted towards specific industries.
I still like the guy, and think this is an improvement over other politicians, but we need to speak honestly about it.
The fact that someone else manages it is entirely the point. In a 401k a politician can insider trade, in a pension they typically can not.
Hi, I respectuflly disagree. The reason this is significant is becuase he isn't influenced due to his ownership in any stocks. Of course he, like anyone else, is concerned about the overall state of the economy.
Its also different from a 401k which is a defined contribution plan. In a defined contribution plan, account holder makes their own investment choices but are often limited in those choices. Their account balance will go up and down based on total contributions and market returns.
A pension is a defined benefit plan. In a defined benefit plan, the participant doesn't have an account that goes up and down based on market fluctuations. Their benefit is defined regardless of these fluctuations. The onus is on the employer to ensure that the plan is correctly funded which is a result of market conditions and 'employer only' contributions to the plan.
You make a great point, and the title of the article is misleading at best, really just plain wrong IMHO. But the title also doesn't state he isn't invested in the stock market, only that he doesn't own any individual company stock.
Personally, I think this version is the most fair way for politicians. On one hand, any investment for them gives them incentive to put market health (money) over their constituents. On the other hand, investing in a 401k or mutual fund is something everyone should do, how else will you afford retirement?