Laura Rowley Money & Happiness

Jarrod - Monday, January 7, 2008, 4:25PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

I agree there are plans out there that have extraordinary fees. I see them everyday, but someone signed off agreeing to those fees. Whether the employer pays for the plan or the employees, someone is going to pay for the fees and administration.... no free lunch and nothing is done for free. Laura Rowley is just Suze Ormaning it..... just a bunch of words on a page because she doesn't have anything else to say and its beginning of the year (good time to talk about 401(k)s). For the smaller plans out there (less than 100 employees), get a SIMPLE plan, less expensive and less complicated. Shows her knowledge in the plan dept.

Winfried - Monday, January 7, 2008, 3:05PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Thank you for a well written and researched article with the links to the Senate hearings, proposed Senate Bill, Fidelity Letter and other links trying to educate the retirement plan participants. Early last year after reviewing our retirement accounts and realizing some accounts were being charged tens of thousands of dollars in hidden fees, I wrote one Service Provider requesting a break out of the fees charged, they refused referencing by law they are not required to break out the fees charged the participant. For example, in one $230,000 Money Market Fund, this 403(b) account was charged approximately $4,800 per year in fees for four (4) electronic statements per year, nowhere is the fee found or noted in any statement, the % fees charged are buried in fine print in the prospectus. That year the fee was more than the interest earned and the year end balance was less than the beginning of the year, mind you in a Money Market Account. Guess who benefits from this, not the participant. We felt legally cheated by the non-disclosure law, we are not against fees but they should be disclosed to the participant as a line item in each statement. I wrote to the Secretary of Labor Elaine Chao, our California congressman, our senators, Rep. George Miller after his congressional hearing requesting more disclosure in the accounting practices, not one wrote back, not even a form letter, their apathy is deafening. I contacted attorneys in Seattle who specialize in retirement plan litigation, they were sympathetic and looked closely at the circumstances but the Service Provider was within their right not to disclose the actual charges. Wake up participants, write, call your congress and senate representatives, requesting changes in legislation requiring a line item with full disclosure of all fees and charges in your statement, anything less is dishonest. You should have the right to know the actual fees charged, especially when these fees amount to thousands of dollars.

moviegeek - Monday, January 7, 2008, 3:03PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Great article,make sure you check the schedule of fees and if a fund pays a dividend before investing.Also see if your company offers a Roth 401k.

Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, January 7, 2008, 2:31PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Bott-Anderson Partners (Ponte Vedra, FL) provides investment consulting services specifically for CFO's/ providers /administrators of 401K & 403B plans. They are completely independent of any brokerage or asset management firm. They work only for the client, and earn fees only from their consulting services. They can develop a new plan or examine/modify the existing one. They have no biases on which funds are selected. They provide unbiased and objective reviews of investment options at very low cost, and they also serve as "cost containment" consultants. Refer to: www.bottanderson.com.

Yahoo! Finance User - Monday, January 7, 2008, 12:52PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Excellent information.

LarryLarry - Sunday, January 6, 2008, 3:06PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

And this is only the tip of the problems... Like, where does that $$ really go? One of the places is into $1MM salaries for plan managers, kickbacks to broker-dealer firms whose representatives make the recommendations, expensive, and probably illegal, boondogles.... etc.... Its the "fat pigs" sucking the life out of the small investor, resulting in increased goverment cost for seniors which could have been reduced by the lost earnings! Where is the SEC, NASD in all of this? The managers of these agencies are often former officers and employees of the beneficiaries of the fee scamming. Collusion! Both, the agency and the SRO should be terminated due to "conflict of interest" and replaced by a "stewad organization" which is responsived to the "social best interest."

Sd - Sunday, January 6, 2008, 2:55PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Like many here I wasn't born yesterday. MF companies that sponser employer retirement plans aren't NPOs; they're in it to make a profit. And they're going to make their profit through fees. And a fee by any other name is still a fee. It's like when you buy a new car. If you tell the salesguy you're going to finance through them he'll be able to give you a better "deal" on the price (the front end) because he knows he's going to make a killing on the financing (the back end). Don't like how much the administrative costs are for your MF? They'll lower it and invent a new fee called a 12b-1 to make up the difference. Simple. Now it's all up to marketing to make consumers believe they're getting a great "deal" with the "lower" rates. That may have some affect on market share but the profit margin per product isn't going to change (at least not decrease). *** axafc, I agree that if you don't take your employer match you're leaving money on the table. I also agree that it would be nice to take money in my employer-sponsored plan and move it elsewhere, and I'm better off than some here by having Fidelity. (Instead I use my IRA or my wife's employer-sponsored Vanguard to cover Fidelity's short comings.) While it makes sense that an advisor could help with asset allocation, some "advisors" are the equivalent of used car salesmen that are just looking for the best commission. Or so I've heard; I haven't actually gone through an advisor myself. But read Anya's article that came out a day before this one and see how well she was "advised". Sure, nobody should be changing their allocation on a frequent basis (like every 3 weeks); if you're unfortunate enough to be holding MFs that others are frequently trading it's going to affect your bottom line negatively, too. Where I will disagree with you, however, is on managed versus indexed (unmanaged) funds. Yes, not all indexed funds are created equal in terms of weighting and what not, but I challenge you to show me just one managed fund that has outperformed an index over a 50 year period. (It's not inconceivable that people work from age 25 to 75 in our longer-lived society.) From what I've read all funds, managed or not, perform the same (i.e. gross return) over long periods of time. If that's true, then would you rather pay 0.1% or over 1% in fees (expense ratio)? Compound that over 50 years and that's an enormous difference! Now, that's not to say you can cover all of your asset allocations with index funds alone. You're going to have to round things out with managed funds; there's no way around that. And if your plan doesn't offer all asset classes -- such as a lack of a foreign small cap value from Fidelity -- you have to get that elsewhere. *** In terms of finding hidden fees, perhaps it would be instructional to go over (again) the financial statements (assets & liabilities, operations, etc.) from (semi)annual reports with an eye for "suspicious" or "deceptive" bookkeeping. Not necessarily to catch outright thievery -- hopefully some authority is watching for that -- but instead the tricks of the trade used to disguise fees.

Khana - Saturday, January 5, 2008, 2:05PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Once again a you have managed to give great advice to all of us trying to make smart financial decision with our 401k's. I would like to commend you on always giving much needed a pertinent advice and not jumping on the sensational bandwagon topics alot of the financial advisors/writers use on yahoo finance. Keep up the great work and I will keep singing your praises to everyone I come in contact with!!!!

Yahoo! Finance User - Saturday, January 5, 2008, 1:06AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Excellent!! No one's writing about this much. This might be the 2nd or 3rd article I've read in several years on the topic. Thank you for being among the first I've read to expose the dirty little secrets buried in the 401k. I closed out my 401k on a change of employment in 2003 and moved the money into a rollover IRA. The limited investment choices, modest returns, forced investments in my employer's company stock, and invisible fees built into my old 401k are history. Now, my retirement investments can be spread over unlimited choices with returns limited only by the quality of my decisions. My annual returns since '03 are four times what they were previously. The difference is huge. The 401k is designed to benefit the employer (their retirement obligations to employees are "retired") and make certain fund managers wealthy. The 401k has paid for a lot of Porsches and it ain't the retirees cruising the Walmart parking lot who're buying them.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 4, 2008, 11:08PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

As the author of Stop the 401(k) Rip-off!, all I can say is it is about time that some of the online media covers this topic. The WSJ covered the new mutual fund rating system of www.fundgrades.com that exposes how plan fiduciaries would objectively evaluate funds according to ERISA. Money Magazine, CS Monitor, Dallas Morning News, Bloomberg, Investment News, Baltimore Examiner and dozens of TV and radio stations have covered both my book and this critical topic and it is nice to see the online media world catching up. Usually the online world is ahead of the curve but this topic has not gained much traction through online media outlets…until now…congrats! I especially appreciate you publishing the Fidelity comments here. The product vendor industry keeps chanting (and lobbying the DOL) that it is harmful to keep people informed because they may not participate if they had the information to actually know how they are being ripped-off, (I admit they don't phrase it that way, but read their comments...in essence it is what they are saying) but with Herb and George's proposed legislation, maybe people won't have to bother buying my book to understand they are victims through the expenses and conflicts of interest. Of course, none of this legislation has yet passed, so if you don’t want to wait, my book offers you a means to get your employer to fix your 401(k) plan in an easy, proactive and positive manner. BTW…the profits from my book are donated to charity. I wrote it because of my own company’s experience in being ripped-off by a 401(k) vendor after spending the time to figure out how to solve the problem. I cut my employees expenses by 80% and the company’s expense by 70% while increasing services. Don’t let the product peddlers fool you here. There are lower cost and higher service options. But, of course, you shouldn’t have that disclosed to you because you might not participate in your 401(k) if you knew what you were paying for!

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 4, 2008, 7:57PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

The LAZY and UNINFORMED post was made by a lobbyist for the insurance and mutual fund industry. He is employed by an organization masquerading as an advocate for employers and employees, but his loyalties are actually to the providers of 401k and profit sharing plan services. Readers should just ignore him. Full disclosure jeopardizes his job security.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 4, 2008, 7:39PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

I’m a regular reader of Laura Rowley’s articles and I am shaking my head at the person who said Laura was lazy and uninformed posted January 4 at 4:31 PM. To that person, I disagree with you. I personally want to know what my retirement plan costs. What other issues are there? Is Senator Harkin lazy and uninformed? You are throwing his legislation out the window and calling it worthless? Seriously, do you really want me not to know what I am paying in fees from my own account? It’s my money! Who do you think you are? Laura's article didn't scare me. It didn't sound sensational either. I don't see how anyone working towards bettering the lives of American workers can in any way be considered to be "not highly regarded." That is the very type of person that I would highly regard, thank you very much. You must be a paid shill for a lobbying organization or you are compensated by financial institutions somehow. Even a simple person like me can see right through you. Laura, your readers know you aren’t lazy. Keep up the good work.

Jesse - Friday, January 4, 2008, 7:09PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

there is problem in that the plan people are extremely inefficient in how they get their job done. they tend to be poor performing investers. we, as small company owners have found the only way to protect our employees is to personally pay ALL costs. If we did not do thia our employees would have a very small to a negative return. we have not been cleaver enough to find a way other than this.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 4, 2008, 4:54PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

I love it when the experts use an "if" scenario to justify their opinion. How about this for an "if"? What if that .08 investment earned a far less return than an investment with a 2.8 percent expense? That investment would be worth less also. You get what you pay for whether it's a toaster or an investment. Employees don't like the threat of losing their jobs to someone who will do it cheaper, they say they're better and more experienced and deserve the pay they're earning. Yes full disclosure is important, it's your money and you should know where it's going but you shouldn't let reasonable fees scare you. I'm not involved with any 401(k) plan administrators or companies at all.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 4, 2008, 4:31PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

This is LAZY and UNINFORMED writing by someone who does not fully understand the issues and is scaring readers with a sensational headline. This article relies too much on on the opinions of one individual whose views are not highly regarded by most people who understand the issuses. The fact is that there are virtually no savings vehicles available to employees that provide a better and more cost effective means for them to save for retirement on a tax deferred basis. Additionally, while employees may be paying for some or all of the investment management costs for their retiremnt accounts and the record keeping for the plan, it is their employers that have decided to have those employees pay the fees, not the investment managers and record keepers. Also its important to realize that the investments available to employees through employer plans are generally cheaper and provide more robust servcies than comparable retail investments. Employers have greater buying power because of the collective assets in the plan which gives them access to less expensive investment choices. However, there is no free lunch. Someone, either the employer or the employees must pay for investment management and administration of the plan. Employers have limited resources to pay for benefits and have had to find ways to subsidize such costs while also trying to provide wage increases, health insurance, life insurance and other benefits. Many employers provide match a portion of employee contributions to 401(k) plans. Employer matches help offset the costs that employees are paying for the services they receive. Of course employers could pay the plan expenses directly and eliminate the plan match or eliminate the plan altogether. It is true that many employees don't know whether and what they are paying in fees for their retirement plan investments. However, this is more a function of the behavior and habits of Americans as savers and investors. Most do not make saving for retirement a priority and even fewer are willing to take the time and effort to learn how to invest, including understanding the investment expenses. That is why last year Congress passed a law allowing employers to automatically enroll employees in their 401(k) plans and make investment advice services available. Most employees need to be forced to save or want to be told what to do. The industry has developed products and services for these "do it for me" types but those products and services come with higher fees. More than enough information is already available through multiple sources for any plan investor that has the interest in asking for and reading the information. It is naive to think that the problem is lack of disclsoure and that forcing more informtion on already overwhelmed and distrinterested employees will get most employees to take the time to understand what they should about their investments and make fully informed decisions. These issues cannot be analyzed in a vacuum and at the end of the day fees vary from plan to plan for many reasons including the busying power or collective assets in the plan, the complexity of how the plan is structured by the employer, the services needs of the employer, the services provided to employees, the quality of the services provided, the investment management fees, and other factors.

vinod - Friday, January 4, 2008, 2:05PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

The article does not talk about IRA Simple for small company employees. This one has practically no fee and provides option of participating series of mutual funds like 401(K), unless I am missing something.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 4, 2008, 1:02PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Actually, deceving the working public HAS created a crisis in public confidence. The reason being that certain types fees can be assessed to one's account that are not in a prospectus. For example, brokerage commissions. Another example being that professionals can submit an invoice to the trustee, who can then authorize payment from the plan. Participants foot the bill, yet participants don't know a thing about it because the "fee" is netted against their returns. Therefore, to say all one has to do is look at the prospectus is nonsense. All of the potential fees are not there. But let's say that they were. What portion of the fees disclosued in the prosectus pay for services you don't want to need? See, you can't tell. That's why itemized disclosure is so important for average folks. This discussion, and in particular the issue, is probably one of the most important discussions/issues of our day. It affects 60 million American workers in a very real and substantial way. The reality is that hidden fees in all industries, and the 401k industry in particular, must become a thing of the past. It is deception that erodes public confidence. It's funny, opponents of full disclosure say that disclosure itself will be too much information for people to absorb, and THAT will erode public confidence. Laughable. Workers want absolute, unequivocal transparency. If it's too much information to absorb at first, so be it. I have the capacity to learn and absorb over time. I also know where to go for help if I need answers. So full disclosure is a must. This article was the most useful article I've read on Yahoo Finance.

paul h - Friday, January 4, 2008, 11:32AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 2/5

This is mutual fund 101 - someone is managing your stock fund, giving you lower risk through diversification, and they are not a charity. There are abuses in the industry, but this is not a public confidence crisis. For any publicly available mutual fund product there is ample information but she doesn't tell you where to look: Morningstar, Motley Fool, Barron's, IBD, etc. Some sites and blogs document abusive funds with excessive fees - you can do a web search and find examples. Simple advice is: do your homework ... more than you would buying a car or a washing machine. Ask your plan administrator if you are charged 401k maintenance fees beyond fund management fees (Fidelity and TRPrice do not for me). I absorb higher mgmt fees on some funds because they are actively managed and have had good returns. Know if you are you paying front end loads, deferred loads or sales commissions. You can find tax impact too for funds (outside a 401k or IRA) that often turn over holdings and generate taxable gains to investors. Information abounds. Laura Rowley is very bright, articulate and successful. She has degrees in Journalism and French studies. Also, please don't equate average investor return with the Dow Index. Apples and Oranges. i.e. don't forget dividends, mergers, etc.

Ice - Friday, January 4, 2008, 10:38AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Does Laura look like Suze Orman? Why are all the haters saying that this is another "Ooze Orman" article? Am I missing something? Also, can the financial wizards that post here stop ripping index funds? Making market returns (after fees!) is not a bad thing. It may take a little longer to reach your goals but not having to spend untold hours researching actively manage funds, their managers, the changes in managers, fees.......... you get the picture, frees up a lot of time to enjoy life. If you like working, if you like having a life outside of work, and don't have the inclination to become a finance wiz, then index funds are the smart way to go. Now...... everybody just chill and watch the NFL playoffs with your friends and family.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 4, 2008, 10:01AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Overall very good article. People need to be aware of what the fees are. And there are hidden fees and expenses. Marketing fees are the worst...commonly known as 12b1 fees. They aren't marketing expenses...they are sales and graft charges that are paid to investment advisors and Third Party Administrators to bring the business to them ie commissions! One thing to keep in mind is that fees will NOT go down with full disclosure....they will simply go back to being a line item on your statements as they were 12-15 years ago. Final note: Many of you small business owners were sold a bill of goods by the mutual fund companies when they told you that your recordkeeping was FREE! It's not...simply built into the expense ratios. When they did this they took the 401k industry away from a fee based environment into asset based one....once the box was opened, it's pretty tough to get it closed again. The business owners that did understand saw it as a way to pass the expense on to the employees and jumped at the opportunity. At the same time, you dolts who demanded daily valuation and trading on your 401k's are equally as culpable....you're paying for a service that you don't and shouldn't use!!!! If every investment advisor out there says rebalance annually...then why the hell do you care what the balance is on May 12? For 401k plans the old way was truly the better way for all concerned.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 4, 2008, 9:47AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

It's true. I didn't take the 401k offer from my last company because I knew how those fees and rules can get in the way. I felt odd, but I didn't have much faith in my company. Sure enough, I quit within the year, and I did actually tell the employer about what I thought about the benefit drawbacks and how their 401k vesting felt like Indian giving. I was old enough to know what they don't tell you at the froo-froo benefit get together.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 4, 2008, 9:21AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 3/5

OK, you just switched jobs and looked at your new 401(K) prospectus, Internet, etc. - and realized that your new plan is very expensive and loaded with fees. So, what do you do? Are you going to your HR and say that they all did a poor job by selecting a bad plan? At best, they will respond like "Be happy that you have a plan, especially with the match". But - again - read the prospectus for each Mutual Fund offered; compare results and fees. If one fund charges 0.25% and has a long term historical return of 7%, and another fund charges 1.5% in fees but delivered 20% annually, I would choose the second fund. Also, anyone can meet with financial advisor, show all funds offered by their 401(K) plan, and get an independent advice - for a fee, of course. But do not blame your employer all the time - they do not have to do it for you.

Yahoo! Finance User - Friday, January 4, 2008, 12:50AM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 3/5

Boo Hoo I cannot figure out what my fees are in the 401(k). For all those concerned about fees in their 401(k) plan...It's called a prospectus... learn how to read one. All retirement plan fees paid by participants can be requested through the plan provider. Simpy ask what are the fund expenses, do you pay any asset charges, custodial fees, or separate account fees above and beyond the fund expenses (expressed as a percentage), and what are the participant account maintainence fees (usually expressed as a stated dollar amount). Ask the plan provider to put it in writing!!! Full fee disclosure is required by law beginning in 2009 and all the major plan providers are already disclosing all their fees to participants.

Phil - Thursday, January 3, 2008, 11:27PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Well written. If you want to invest more be informed as to the fees you pay. If your fees are 2% more than an investment elsewhere keep that in mind when comparing returns. Complain to your local congress people in person. They are more likely to listen to your point of view because your vote matter to them.

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, January 3, 2008, 10:46PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

It's interesting to me that those who give this story a lower rating seem to have something to lose - like they are investment sales people fearful of full and fair disclosure. . Axafc - what are you rambling about? This story is about fair and open business practices. No one is saying people be forced to invest in index funds. The article is simply saying that people should know what their investments and associated record keeping services cost. That's all this article was about - nothing more. Transparent business practices - through full disclosure of all fees and economic costs - is the American way. Nothing less is acceptable. I applaud Laura, Congress, and all others who are working so diligently to bring about change in the industry. Excellent article.

Garry - Thursday, January 3, 2008, 10:26PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

here is the problem folks, suze doesn't know you nor does she really care what your retirement looks like. she is paid to write an article that people will read and two underlying themes for columnists to appeal to, are fear and greed!!! everything has a cost, everything. if you work for a company that has a 401K, this is the only account that you can contribute over 5K or 6K. contribute up to the match as to not leave money on the table and then invest the rest yourself. i am in the business and i believe the answer is for current law to be changed to allow for money to be moved from company sponsored retirement plans whenever you want as to allow for more control over investment selection. we as individuals should be responsible with our own spending and saving and take control of funding our own retirements. retirement plans are a great tool especially those with a match, that is free money and should be considered as compensation. most costs are paid by the employer establishing the plan and if you are purchasing funds at Net Asset Value, generally these are institutional share classes which overall have low internal expenses. ooze's article is a generality and as most of what she says is crap, this article follows suit. it is best to consult with an advisor to help you get enrolled and allocated correctly. INDEX funds are not the answer. many are unmanaged, market cap weighted, and generally are no better than those with slightly higher management fees that are monitored on and ongoing basis. investing is not an easy process and should be given much consideration. at least as much time spent reviewing your portfolio as sitting in line at the fast food place. take time, read, ask questions and work with someone. i believe you get out of it what you put into the process and stop changing your allocation every 3 weeks. some plans are good, some plans are not. as i said before, the cure all would be if individuals were allowed to move money more freely to self directed IRA's, thus offering more control and more investment options

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, January 3, 2008, 9:27PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 1/5

So my employer pics Wachovia and they offer sucky selections in our 401K plan, don't update the fund returns for almost 2 weeks after the month closes and they charge us with reasonable fees. They SUCK. But what can I do in this case? Our employer picks these losers and we are stuck with them. Why don't you write an article that gives us addresses or contacts to write and complain about this? Your article is another Ooze Orman sort of regurgitation of the same sold stuff we hear every year. What are you going to write that is different?

Tom - Thursday, January 3, 2008, 9:21PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Great article that should be required reading for anyone with a 401K. With more and more companies, big and small, pushing retirement decisions to its workers, it is beyond belief that they have the gall to whack employees with outrageous fees. I am lucky with my plan as my employer gives you the option to transfer all your funds to a brokerage account to go just about anywhere like individual stocks or funds. I immediately went to a low cost index funds knowing that over time I will outperform 95% of the hyped-up underperforming funds run by 25 year old peach-fuzz faced MBA's who get paid whether they do good or not. Keep up the great articles!

Yahoo! Finance User - Thursday, January 3, 2008, 7:59PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 5/5

Good article, but good luck finding out the truth even with this knowledge. I have been asking for years and even our management doesn't know what the fees are. And the company managing our 401k hides it as deep as they can, which makes me suspicious. Oh, yes, it is an insurance company too.

looneytarian - Thursday, January 3, 2008, 7:54PM ET  Report Abuse

• Overall: 4/5

Excellent article! However, if Congress is going to address fees for retirement plan management, why stop there? Outrageous and hidden fees are pervasive throughout banking, credit card industries, mortgages, cable and internet providers, utitlities and almost every industry where some sort of service is being provided. For example, my electric bill has about 4 different service charges on it, each which vary up or down with the amount of KWH used. The distribution charge I can understand varying with usage, but the adminstrative charges? It does not take any more effort or time to adminster my account for 30 KWH than it does for 15. No doubt everyone has heard the stories about duplicate mortgage fees being labeled differently to disguise the fact that the broker is charging you twice for the same service. No reasonable person expects companies to manage accounts for nothing, but as far as I am concerned, ALL excessive and hidden fees have got to go. Thanks for the heads up, Laura! I am going to take a closer look at my plan right away.