Ability to count optional

You don’t need to be able to count to write for Yahoo Finance:

This writer can’t count and can’t get the name of the retirement account right: It’s 401(k). So, why would anyone trust the advice from this site?


Did the editor roll over?

Was there some disagreement at Yahoo Finance about the name of a popular retirement plan? Did the writer insist it’s a 401k, but the editor claim it’s 401(k)? Did the editor roll over and write this:

Well, a finance writer and editor who don’t know that the plan is a 401(k) probably don’t know that rollover isn’t a verb. The verb phrase is two words: roll over. (And the illustrator has a different idea about the plan’s name.)

But wait! There’s more! The headline for the article also claims rollover can be a verb. (What would its past tense be? rollovered?)

And there’s yet another (and wrong) name for the plan, this time with a capital K. (I’m going to overlook the missing hyphen in what normally would be two-minute.  It’s Yahoo’s feature and the company can call it anything it wants, even if it’s slightly illiterate.)

That would be the definition of remains

I don’t know why I bother to read an article when the headline contains an error. Not surprisingly, the offending header is on Yahoo! News:

401k news 1

The U.S. retirement plan is a 401(k) — the parentheses are part of its name, which is taken from subsection 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code. The writer is so sure that the plan requires no parentheses, he omits them again:

401k news 2

What would be the living remains of a cat? I was just wondering since the writer tells us about the deceased remains of a cat:

401k news 3

Do you think that word missing in “started move on” is the last error. Calm down on that optimism. There’s just one more bit of nonsense:

401k news 4

I’m stumped. How do you calm down on optimism? How do you write stuff like that and still have a job?

A new retirement plan?

Is there a new retirement plan that I’m unaware of? According to the Yahoo! front page, there just may be!

Or maybe it’s a mistake. The U.S. retirement plan is a 401(k) — the parentheses are part of its name, which is taken from subsection 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code.

The U.S. state is Louisiana — the two I’s are part of its name, which is taken from France’s King Louis XIV.

The mistakes are Yahoo!’s — the company that doesn’t have editors, proofreaders, or even spell-checkers.

How to rescue a bad 401(k)

Faced with a bad 401(k) like the readers of the Yahoo! front page?

You can rescue that retirement plan with a pair of parentheses and a lowercase K — 401(k). The plan is named after subsection 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code.

What are the chances?

What are the chances that these are just typos on Yahoo! Shine:

It’s probably just a slip of the fingers that screwed-up 401(k) (it needs a lowercase K and parentheses), added the goofy comma, and produced the laughable misspelling of vice versa.

Hoping these were just careless mistakes, I checked out the actual article. Much to my surprise, the mistakes are repeated here:

and here:

Not content with those errors, the writer introduces at least one more:

I’m sure the writer would be mortified to see those errors. Or not.

%d bloggers like this: