Speaker 1: Bloomberg Audio Studios, podcasts, radio news.
Speaker 2: I'm here with Teresa Gillarducci.
Speaker 3: She is the professor of economics at the New School
Speaker 3: for Economic Research.
Speaker 2: And you are a thought leader.
Speaker 3: A lot of folks on Wall Street go to you
Speaker 3: for advice on how to deal with what they think
Speaker 3: of as a retirement crisis. But there are some divergences
Speaker 3: here and what people think the solution should be. You
Speaker 3: think of Larry Fink, for example, Blackrock is now working
Speaker 3: to announce partnerships initiatives over years to even work on
Speaker 3: the average age of retirement, encouraging people to work longer.
Speaker 3: You recently came out with a book debunking a lot
Speaker 3: of that, thinking what's the discrepancy here?
Speaker 1: Well, if I was in a room with Larry Fink,
Speaker 1: I would say, look, what you do at Blackrock is
Speaker 1: a solution that you're managing money. You're managing wealth for
Speaker 1: all America to say for their retirement.
Speaker 4: That's a really good thing to do.
Speaker 1: And Americans need to build more wealth for retirement. But
Speaker 1: if you think, mister Fink, that people working longer, maybe
Speaker 1: just a one year or two years longer, will mean
Speaker 1: that people won't go into their old age without being
Speaker 1: downwardly mobile into poverty from being a middle class worker.
Speaker 1: Or you think that working longer will maintain people's living standards, you'll.
Speaker 4: Be wrong for eight reasons.
Speaker 1: The first reason is that he and everyone else might
Speaker 1: think it just makes sense to work longer because people
Speaker 1: are living longer, and that's actually not true. Not everyone
Speaker 1: is living longer. There is a slice of the population
Speaker 1: that have had good health care, have had the kinds
Speaker 1: of jobs that enhance their health and their well being
Speaker 1: and their skills, and they're living longer. So white men
Speaker 1: are definitely living longer than they had before. But there
Speaker 1: are some parts of our economy, of our America where
Speaker 1: actually the longevity is going down. Deaths of despair, the suicides,
Speaker 1: the opioids, the addiction, even the kinds of jobs that
Speaker 1: people have are foreshortening their lives. So the inequality of
Speaker 1: longevity and healthy longevity is really disproportionately distributed, so they
Speaker 1: can't work longer.
Speaker 4: I have six others.
Speaker 3: But let's harp on that for a moment, because a
Speaker 3: lot of people on Wall Street believe that working longer
Speaker 3: is a solution just because of how healthcare has gotten better.
Speaker 3: Let's get a little more specific on who it doesn't
Speaker 3: work for and how large is that population not being
Speaker 3: addressed if.
Speaker 2: This is a solution.
Speaker 1: Well, I've been in these rooms for about forty years.
Speaker 1: That's how long my career has and ever since I started,
Speaker 1: when Social Security was being cut and pensions were going
Speaker 1: on the wayside and there were more four one k's
Speaker 1: or do it your self type systems, we all knew
Speaker 1: that people would not have enough given that we did
Speaker 1: not have a good pension system, and so people thought, well,
Speaker 1: for the small group of people who are blue collar
Speaker 1: workers brick layers, they will be able to be disabled earlier,
Speaker 1: but for everybody else, the work is going to get easier. Well,
Speaker 1: in forty years, that has not happened. Now think about
Speaker 1: it for a while. A lot of jobs that aren't
Speaker 1: blue collar work have become pink collar. And pink collar
Speaker 1: jobs are jobs that women do very much in the
Speaker 1: service sector, taking care of older people, taking care of children.
Speaker 1: That requires a lot of heavy lifting, a lot of
Speaker 1: stooping and bending, a lot.
Speaker 4: Of physical activity.
Speaker 1: And those jobs break bodies down. There are also a
Speaker 1: lot of light blue collar jobs or semi pink collar
Speaker 1: jobs that require a lot of engagement with the computer,
Speaker 1: and the computer has made some aspects of jobs easier,
Speaker 1: easier on the knees, but the requirements for intense concentration,
Speaker 1: keen eyesight, and actually be able to speed up your
Speaker 1: work because of increased surveillance has actually made those jobs
Speaker 1: harder too.
Speaker 4: And when you add up all the.
Speaker 1: Complexities involved in jobs that older people have, those jobs
Speaker 1: actually can raise cortisol levels, increase inflammation, and cause more
Speaker 1: metabolic disorders and early death. So a lot of the
Speaker 1: jobs that people have are expected to have in old
Speaker 1: age are actually the kinds of jobs that will break
Speaker 1: bodies down and are accelerating sickness.
Speaker 2: That's the impact on the individual.
Speaker 3: It seems like the retirement burden in a lot of
Speaker 3: ways has shifted from employers to the individual. At the
Speaker 3: same time, there's a question of whether a lot of
Speaker 3: these jobs will be supported at that age level.
Speaker 2: How do you see that conundrum working out?
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, there are some businesses that are hoping that
Speaker 1: they'll be a big supply of desperate.
Speaker 4: Older workers ready to work.
Speaker 1: Those jobs are in home health care and personal care,
Speaker 1: So we have one of the biggest industries. Everybody is
Speaker 1: in this personal care. They're destined to add over a
Speaker 1: million jobs in an economy where we'll only add about
Speaker 1: eleven million jobs over the past ten years. A good
Speaker 1: ten percent of the new labor force will be these
Speaker 1: jobs and just that one occupation. But business services janitorial
Speaker 1: work again disproportionate amount of older workers. I think those
Speaker 1: businesses really like the fact that these workers are very,
Speaker 1: very cheap, and they're very desperate. The fact that jobs
Speaker 1: are breaking down their bodies really isn't of a concern
Speaker 1: of the employers, but we will. Part of the crisis
Speaker 1: is that the lucky ones.
Speaker 4: Will be able to get those jobs.
Speaker 1: The part of the crisis that I think that many experts,
Speaker 1: including Larry Fink, doesn't understand is that most people cannot
Speaker 1: decide when they retire. They are retired. They don't retire.
Speaker 1: The verb and the agent is really on the wrong person.
Speaker 1: So fifty two percent of people who say they are
Speaker 1: retired said they were forced to forced to retire either
Speaker 1: because of their knees or their metabolic disorders, or just
Speaker 1: the stress of the job they couldn't take, or they
Speaker 1: had to take care of their spouse, but also because
Speaker 1: they were pushed out or laid off. So this idea
Speaker 1: that workers can just decide to work longer is also
Speaker 1: a myth, because most people cannot decide whether or not
Speaker 1: to work or not.
Speaker 3: There's another problem here, whether you're on a state or
Speaker 3: local pension plan. Here, pensions across the entire country are underfunded.
Speaker 3: There's a separate issue as well with the four oh
Speaker 3: one K plans, where a lot of people are not
Speaker 3: saving enough to retire on. Whose responsibility ultimately is it
Speaker 3: to make sure that there's enough money for this population
Speaker 3: to retire on.
Speaker 1: We can say that it's up to the eighteen year
Speaker 1: old to be financially literate and to understand that when
Speaker 1: they get out of school or start work. Because half
Speaker 1: of eighteen year olds don't even try college, it's not
Speaker 1: an appropriate place for them. And you could think so
Speaker 1: it could be on the individual, and then people say, well,
Speaker 1: it's up to their parents to tell them what to do.
Speaker 4: Well, a lot of children did not pick the right parents.
Speaker 1: That was a joke, But it's really important for us
Speaker 1: as society to realize that there's a lot of wealth,
Speaker 1: including knowledge and wealth actual wealth that it's handed down,
Speaker 1: and a lot of debt and a lot of burden
Speaker 1: that is also handed down So the answer to your
Speaker 1: very point of question, whose responsibility is, I'm going to
Speaker 1: say it is unreasonable to think that is just the person,
Speaker 1: individual person's responsibility. No other country requires the individual to
Speaker 1: do so much for their retirement planning than the United States.
Speaker 4: So when we moved away.
Speaker 1: From traditional pension plans where if a worker worked, they
Speaker 1: were just put into a plan that money was managed
Speaker 1: for them, they couldn't choose, and we moved to four
Speaker 1: oh one ks where the worker had to decide how
Speaker 1: much to invest, whether or not to invest, and had
Speaker 1: to choose an employer that actually provided the plan.
Speaker 4: Most employers do not.
Speaker 1: Most people now eighty three million workers right now today
Speaker 1: as we're talking, are employed, but they're not employed in
Speaker 1: any kind of setup where they can save for work.
Speaker 1: So the employer doesn't even have to have any responsibility
Speaker 1: for it. And the government's responsibility is to give a
Speaker 1: tax deduction to an employee that happens to save. Well,
Speaker 1: who are those They're the highest paid and they have
Speaker 1: the sort of the best employers. So the tax deduction,
Speaker 1: the government's responsibility for savings is only going for the
Speaker 1: very top, So that eighty percent of our two hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy billion dollars we spend the government spends on
Speaker 1: retirement savings is going.
Speaker 4: Eighty percent of that is going to the top. Twenty's
Speaker 4: got a.
Speaker 3: Call to eliminate the tax deduction.
Speaker 1: Now, yes, my colleague Delicia Manel and her Republican counterpart
Speaker 1: came together to call out what I'm calling out, So
Speaker 1: we're agreement there. This is a very expensive and regressive tax,
Speaker 1: but it does help some people save for retirement.
Speaker 4: So why get rid of something where.
Speaker 1: If it works for one slice of the population. All
Speaker 1: I'm saying is, don't leave the eighty three million people
Speaker 1: who don't have access to retirement plans out of this
Speaker 1: big bonanza. So perhaps we can put a cap on
Speaker 1: it and make it less expensive and more efficient by
Speaker 1: not giving away thousands of dollars a.
Speaker 4: Year to people who don't need it.
Speaker 1: So we could cap it, but we also could broaden
Speaker 1: it so that everybody can get some help from the government.
Speaker 4: I'm still going.
Speaker 1: Back to your question whose responsibility is it? And it
Speaker 1: is the system's responsibility to get people to accumulate money
Speaker 1: for their retirement earlier in life they accumulate Social Security credits.
Speaker 4: You know, there's no.
Speaker 1: Choice about whether or not you're in social security or not.
Speaker 1: We would even the most conservative Republican would not call
Speaker 1: for making social security voluntary. So why do we have
Speaker 1: our pension system, the other vital part of the pension
Speaker 1: system accumulating money, having it managed by Black Rock or whoever,
Speaker 1: why would we make that voluntary? And the countries around
Speaker 1: the world that have a system that's graded A or
Speaker 1: A minus, there's an international grading system of pension systems.
Speaker 1: None of their advance funded, pre funded part of their
Speaker 1: pension system is voluntary.
Speaker 3: This idea of voluntary social security. There are real concerns
Speaker 3: under the surface and how to fund social security for
Speaker 3: the long term. A lot of concern outside of the
Speaker 3: baby boomer generation on how America's money gets filtered into
Speaker 3: America's youth as they age.
Speaker 2: What's the fix?
Speaker 1: Yeah, so the fix for social security is to put
Speaker 1: more revenue in it. We are past the point where
Speaker 1: we can fix social security.
Speaker 4: By cutting benefits.
Speaker 1: That is a non starter because the benefits for social
Speaker 1: security are keeping almost all of the people on social
Speaker 1: security above the poverty level, everybody below a certain amount,
Speaker 1: so it is a vital anti poverty device. Cutting it
Speaker 1: would just make the system even more grim, so we
Speaker 1: need more revenue into it.
Speaker 4: The Social Security actuaries back in the day.
Speaker 1: I mean this is in the thirties again renewed in
Speaker 1: the forties, fifties, sixties said that social security will need
Speaker 1: revenue from general revenues. We should not just be dependent
Speaker 1: upon the payroll tax to fund the whole thing. So
Speaker 1: there are many, many easy fixes to social security, and
Speaker 1: it really requires just more money.
Speaker 4: Pot from other pots.
Speaker 1: Capital gains, lots of other places we can get social
Speaker 1: security revenue. The key thing as an economist is whether
Speaker 1: or not the amount of money needed will break the bank,
Speaker 1: you know, will break the economy. And we're nowhere near that.
Speaker 1: We spend much less in terms of our GDP on
Speaker 1: the elderly that their countries.
Speaker 4: Even if we fully funded.
Speaker 1: Social security, we would still be under the international averages.
Speaker 4: It's less than half of a percentage.
Speaker 3: It's interesting to hear you say that capital gains can
Speaker 3: help find social security.
Speaker 2: How much would that help fill the gap?
Speaker 3: And also wouldn't that be a transfer of wealth from
Speaker 3: the investor class to the broader public.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, the investor class is part of the
Speaker 1: broader public and part of the conversation we've been having
Speaker 1: for the past five years is that if you only
Speaker 1: try to protect the investor class and let them be
Speaker 1: involved in the wealth accumulating part of our economy, the
Speaker 1: investor class may be threatened by the collapse the very
Speaker 1: economy they're benefiting from. So I think with Ray Dallio
Speaker 1: and even Larry Fink, there's a very much a recognition
Speaker 1: from the investor class.
Speaker 4: I was just the Milk And.
Speaker 1: Conference that if we have a wealth building institutions in
Speaker 1: this country, everybody has to be part of it.
Speaker 4: So back to social Security.
Speaker 1: I did a calculation that if Elon Musk paid for
Speaker 1: social Security just on his salary for the entire year,
Speaker 1: and some of his capital gains were taxed to fund
Speaker 1: social security, just one person, it would save one twentieth of.
Speaker 4: The deficit in social security.
Speaker 1: Imagine broadening that out to maybe twenty thousand other people.
Speaker 4: To gently this is not very much.
Speaker 1: You don't have to raise a tax rate to any
Speaker 1: perceptible amount, but just helping share in the funding of
Speaker 1: social security, we could solve that problem overnight. The problem
Speaker 1: with not funding social security and not having an actual
Speaker 1: report to say, hey, it's funded for the next twenty.
Speaker 4: Five years, is it?
Speaker 1: It depresses the savings rates of ordinary Americans. I we're
Speaker 1: finding out in surveys that people are saying, I'm not
Speaker 1: saving for I'm not saving for retirement, I'm not building
Speaker 1: wealth because social security won't be there. The worst as
Speaker 1: the worst cultural norm that you could flame that would
Speaker 1: reduce the savings rate is fatalism, and not dealing with
Speaker 1: social security is inducing a fatalism that is suppressing the
Speaker 1: savings rate, which actually suppresses the motive for people to
Speaker 1: save for their own retirement.
Speaker 4: So it's interconnected.
Speaker 3: So the fix for those eighty three million people, as
Speaker 3: you're talking about, is social security part of that fix
Speaker 3: or is it something else?
Speaker 1: It's social security has to be part of it, but
Speaker 1: there has to be something else, which is much bolder
Speaker 1: than the kind of moving the needle legislation we've seen in.
Speaker 4: The last forty years.
Speaker 1: And almost everybody everybody I talk to agrees, from the
Speaker 1: very highest investor class to the person who just did
Speaker 1: my makeup this morning, is that we need to get
Speaker 1: people saving for their life cycle needs, their retirement earlier
Speaker 1: as early as possible. So as soon as someone starts
Speaker 1: working and having to pay into Social Security is exactly
Speaker 1: the moment they should.
Speaker 4: Start paying into their own account.
Speaker 1: And there is a bill in Congress, not even just
Speaker 1: in the House or just in the Senate, but both
Speaker 1: in the House and in the Senate, and not supported
Speaker 1: by just Republicans or Democrats, but supported by both Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats. So it's a bipartisan bi camerole simple fix,
Speaker 1: and that's called the Retirement Savings for Americans Act are SAA.
Speaker 1: And what it does is everybody who's not in a
Speaker 1: pension plan now, So all of your listeners who are
Speaker 1: in the business and selling for one keys to companies,
Speaker 1: this does not apply to them.
Speaker 4: It only applies to all the people.
Speaker 1: Over half of workers who do not have a retirement
Speaker 1: account now and won't next year, that they will be
Speaker 1: automatically enrolled into a government administered pension plan, a national
Speaker 1: pension plan. Automatically they'll save three percent. And if their
Speaker 1: earnings are below the median, so that's half half of
Speaker 1: workers in this eligible set, the government will match five percent.
Speaker 1: And everything we know from behavioral finance, from just case
Speaker 1: studies is that when you include a match, something flips
Speaker 1: in people's brain.
Speaker 4: They're not fatalistic about retirement anymore.
Speaker 3: It's interesting, this sounds very close to what we see
Speaker 3: in some other countries, similar to something like a super
Speaker 3: fund or even a sovereign wealth fund of its own kind.
Speaker 2: For America, that kind of idea.
Speaker 3: Is something that you and a lot of the folks
Speaker 3: that are running these big financial institutions would agree on.
Speaker 3: Why would that be the fix? How hard is that
Speaker 3: to accomplish? Who manages the money?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: What I've been working for a lot of years with
Speaker 1: many different people, many of them you know on Wall Street.
Speaker 1: I co authored a book with Tony James, who was
Speaker 1: the president of.
Speaker 4: Blackstone at the time. This was the fix.
Speaker 1: I wrote a paper with Kevin Hassett, who is Trump's
Speaker 1: top economic advisor. We all agree that we should take
Speaker 1: examples from other countries where they build a capital fund.
Speaker 1: Capitalists love it because it provides a capitalist fund and
Speaker 1: everybody is involved. And the Democrats love it, you know,
Speaker 1: because it actually provides economic security. Republicans should care about
Speaker 1: economic security as well. But there's something for everybody. It
Speaker 1: is like a soft and wealth fund, which is a lot.
Speaker 1: It's an asset that matches a liability, and that liability
Speaker 1: is that a population ages and can't work forever.
Speaker 3: So one big problem that a lot of Americans have
Speaker 3: is getting down, as you've been saying, to save early on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, some people are living.
Speaker 3: Many people are living meant paycheck to paycheck in which
Speaker 3: they find it difficult to save.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm so glad you asked that, Sonali. We are
Speaker 1: finding in fact, in practice and in surveys that the
Speaker 1: lowest paid workers are the ones that want to save
Speaker 1: the most. They're not financially illiterate. It's actually the opposite.
Speaker 1: They're keenly aware of the hardships that they're facing, and
Speaker 1: they know that having a wealth cushion is really important.
Speaker 4: I've interviewed Latino mothers in.
Speaker 1: Chicago and Los Angeles as part of a project that
Speaker 1: did that, and they said, to us, give me a
Speaker 1: pension plan that's my own and that my family does
Speaker 1: not have access to, because if I try to save
Speaker 1: anything for my retirement, I have to use it for
Speaker 1: my family members. That's very much part of what wealth
Speaker 1: building is for.
Speaker 4: Different communities.
Speaker 1: So if we don't have a place where people can
Speaker 1: save for emergencies and also save have it protected for
Speaker 1: their life cycle, no one, not except the elites will
Speaker 1: be able to take advantage of compound interest.
Speaker 2: The question of who manages the money, yes, fun like this.
Speaker 2: I think it's an important one because you know, I
Speaker 2: think the money management industry.
Speaker 3: Wakes up every day to try to meet these retirement needs.
Speaker 2: But at the end of the day, are they meeting
Speaker 2: that need?
Speaker 4: Well?
Speaker 1: The retail managers have a very different platform than the
Speaker 1: institutional managers. I'm a big fan of traditional pension plans,
Speaker 1: the ones that state local workers have, and many of
Speaker 1: the unionized workers in big companies or the companies that
Speaker 1: don't want to be unionized, so they provide a good
Speaker 1: plan like the like the non union car companies. What
Speaker 1: they do is they pool money. And this is what
Speaker 1: the government plan would do. The government would not manage
Speaker 1: this money. It would be managed just like the defined
Speaker 1: benefit plans of actually the World Bank or the State
Speaker 1: of California. They would be managed by institutional investors. But
Speaker 1: more importantly that the dollars invested into those kinds of
Speaker 1: pool professionally managed funds will go a lot further than
Speaker 1: the four oh one K money today.
Speaker 4: Right now, we provided.
Speaker 1: A system to American workers that is guaranteed to not
Speaker 1: give them the best fee adjusted risk adjusted rate of return.
Speaker 1: Because the poor individual has to decide where to what
Speaker 1: portfolio to get them on the efficient frontier, completely impossible
Speaker 1: for a worker who has to deal with building a
Speaker 1: building or teaching an English class, you can possibly do.
Speaker 1: So we have a system that is not aligned with
Speaker 1: the capabilities of the people that have the most responsibility.
Speaker 1: So the money would be funded in the sovereign Wealth
Speaker 1: Fund by professional private money managers.
Speaker 3: So there was a recent story in the New York
Speaker 3: Times with the question was the four oh one K
Speaker 3: a mistake? In cites your research, was the four to
Speaker 3: one K a mistake?
Speaker 1: Yes, the four oh one K system was a mistake.
Speaker 1: If it was meant to be the retirement system for
Speaker 1: all Americans, it would have been called the retirement system
Speaker 1: for all Americans. Instead, it was named after an obscure
Speaker 1: part of the IRS Code, and it was meant for
Speaker 1: a completely different purpose. It was meant to supplement social
Speaker 1: security and traditional pension, but because of several factors, it
Speaker 1: became a retirement savings plan for just a privileged part
Speaker 1: of the of the American economy.
Speaker 2: This idea of a pooled retirement plan, a giant.
Speaker 3: Super fund let's call super fun of the super fun
Speaker 3: for the sake of this conversation. For in Australia, this
Speaker 3: is kind of one of the closest examples that there
Speaker 3: is even that's underfunded.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so why would this be the right fix?
Speaker 1: Well, you know, you always have a growing liability in
Speaker 1: any kind of pooled fund, and you saw that with
Speaker 1: Social Security. It's always had a drop dead date of
Speaker 1: twenty years, but it's lasted for seventy five years. No,
Speaker 1: there are many funds that aren't underfunded, and in fact
Speaker 1: those good funds are are funded because they the money
Speaker 1: always comes in. In this super fund you know that
Speaker 1: would be created, it would be always one hundred funded
Speaker 1: because because no money could come out that wasn't put in.
Speaker 1: The magic is is that the money going in would
Speaker 1: be invested well, and it's not invested well in a
Speaker 1: four h one k. So this idea is a hybrid
Speaker 1: fund fund between a defined contribution to find benefit. But
Speaker 1: this fund would always be one hundred percent funded.
Speaker 3: So in the world of money management, there's a large
Speaker 3: and growing debate about the role of private assets. This
Speaker 3: whole idea that private assets, given that there is some
Speaker 3: room to wait to pay out some of the pensioners
Speaker 3: or retirees that these private pools of capital can be
Speaker 3: used to increase yields in the interim, or even some
Speaker 3: say that there's a liquidity myth that exists in public
Speaker 3: markets versus private markets. But we are at a point
Speaker 3: where you're seeing pensions asking private fund managers for their
Speaker 3: money back. They're having trouble getting it back in many
Speaker 3: instances as well. Why would private assets be any sort
Speaker 3: of fix.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I get that it's not a fix for an
Speaker 1: individual fund. An individual having private assets along with liquid assets,
Speaker 1: and a four oh one K account is very difficult
Speaker 1: to manage for exactly the reason you want. Four on
Speaker 1: one ks are not long term investments. They're fully liquid.
Speaker 1: A person can take money out of that account. Remember
Speaker 1: my Latino mothers and so we Congress call them retirement accounts,
Speaker 1: but they're not retirement accounts at all. I told Congress,
Speaker 1: I think just several weeks ago, I was in front
Speaker 1: of a Senate committee. I said, Congress, call them the
Speaker 1: Great American Emergency Savings Act, our savings accounts, but have
Speaker 1: a real retirement account. A real retirement account is not liquid,
Speaker 1: and therefore the asset that is not as liquid as
Speaker 1: a public market assets is the appropriate asset.
Speaker 4: So only you get this.
Speaker 1: We have this system where we're trying to match short
Speaker 1: term assets with long term liabilities. It's a huge, giant
Speaker 1: asset mismatch that is costing Americans their old age and
Speaker 1: it's costing the American economy a huge inefficiency. So a
Speaker 1: super fund would be an asset that has long term
Speaker 1: ill liquid liabilities as well as others, but it would
Speaker 1: match this long term liability each worker has, which is
Speaker 1: their life cycle needs.
Speaker 3: So to be clear, you think private assets make sense
Speaker 3: in a longer term pooled portfolio, but not.
Speaker 2: In a four oh one K plan.
Speaker 1: Yeah, and I know I'm up against some of my
Speaker 1: friends that are trying to sell them maybe little itsy
Speaker 1: bitsy parts in an account, but no, because the four
Speaker 1: oh one K is a liquid account. And even the
Speaker 1: private asset managers will say, yeah, it's not for someone
Speaker 1: who demands liquidity. And what I'm telling them is that
Speaker 1: every four or a one K holder will demand liquidity
Speaker 1: because they the leakage in these plans, you know, are gigantic.
Speaker 1: It's dooming the system to be a retirement plan, and
Speaker 1: therefore it's not a good asset,