Surrender Charges in 403(b) Forum Posted March 23, 2004 · Report reply <!--QuoteBegin--Redwoods+Mar 22 2004, 09:37 PM--> QUOTE (Redwoods @ Mar 22 2004, 09:37 PM)<!--QuoteEBegin--> High French Teacher, The AFT has just followed what their New York State and other state affiliates have done some time ago. They have recently endorsed the high cost 403b programs provided by ING. So now the various state affiliates do not have to do any due dilligence. They can simply tell their local affiliates and their respective school boards that if the AFT says ING is the way to go then that is the way to go!! These local unions don't have to worry about the school boards doing their own due dilligence because they have been out to lunch on these matters for decades. So who gets screwed----the rank and file dues paying member. How does the saying go...power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely---well... you know what I mean. Frech Teacher, insofar as you think of my NYSUT/ING story, as published on this website, as a "diatribe" how do you describe the AFT's article "Shark Attack"? In your letter to the AFT (I trust you are working on it) you may want to ask them to justify their national endorsement of ING in light of their denunciation of such 403(b) providers as reported in their Shark Attack article. Once you finish your letter why don't you email it to me and I will sign it too. Peace and Hope, Joel <!--QuoteEnd--> <!--QuoteEEnd--> Just so I'm clear, Joel...are you now asking me to write to AFT to question their "Shark Attack" article, a mere few days after telling everyone on this site on March 17th that you highly recommended the article? (I'm surprised you don't want me to include an unsubstantiated allegation that the AFT is merely endorsing ING for the extra ten grand or so in advertising revenue.) I think I'll pass on including you as a signatory on my letter to the AFT and/or NYSUT, largely because I doubt you'd agree with my conclusions. Should I decide to write to them, it'll be to thank them for working with ING to create Opportunity Plus, a 403(b) program wherein I pay no annual account fee, no front-end sales charges, no back-end sales charges (declining or otherwise), and no surrender fees of any kind; and which features a fixed account that contractually cannot go lower than 4%, a pretty outstanding rate in today's interest rate environment. (Funny, when TIAA-CREF or Vanguard offer funds that have no sales charges, they're the model providers; when ING does it, they're sharks.) Yes, their expense ratios are certainly higher than the no-loads; I'm happy to pay more to receive the services of a certified financial planner as part of the deal. Why that should be anathema to you, when it would be perfectly acceptable to pay much much more for a fee-only financial planner to guide me to no-load funds, remains a mystery to me.