SURVEY SAYS: With (renewed) apologies to those of you who are weary of the Enron-centricity of the media’s coverage of late, there appears to be an emerging sentiment to save participants from themselves – even in situations where there is no blackout – and no required investment in employer stock.
This week, Enron aside, we asked readers their opinion(s) on the imposition of investment limits, specifically, ‘should participants be limited in how much they can invest in company stock – even if they have the ability to change that investment at any time?’
Clearly the topic struck a chord among readers – on both sides of the issue, and everywhere in between. And just as clearly, it’s a complicated issue. ‘I’ve seen people put all their money in company stock; I appreciate their trust but question their logic.’, said one reader. Numerically, nearly 65% of this week’s respondents weighed in opposing limits on participants. However, a sizeable number of those also opposed the kind of limits that Enron imposed on workers – forcing the employer match to be made, and to remain in employer stock. One reader offered the following perspective, ‘If there are any holding requirements imposed on the company stock, then there should be a limit on the amount of stock a participant can own.’ Another reader suggested , ‘I feel employees should be limited in the amount they invest in company stock, unless they sign a disclosure stating they are educated enough to know what risks they are taking in doing so.’