2009 Plan Performance Rankings Q4

Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, for three-year investment performance and for five-year investment performance. The top performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile" the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology click here. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers (click here). These rankings are for periods ended Dec. 31, 2009 One-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 3.58 2 West Virginia SMART529 WV Direct 20.41 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 26.95 4 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 27.02 5 Alabama College Counts 529 Fund 28.62 6 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 29.55 7 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 29.77 8 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan - Client Direct Series 30.71 9 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 33.24 10 South Dakota CollegeAccess 529 (Direct-sold) 34.37 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 18.68 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 21.32 3 Florida Florida College Investment Plan 26.35 4 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 33.50 5 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.43 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 34.71 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 36.21 8 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 36.47 9 Missouri MOST - Missouri's 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.88 10 Nevada The Upromise College Fund 37.94 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 27.05 2 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 27.46 3 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.89 4 Nebraska College Savings Plan of Nebraska (Direct-sold) 36.37 5 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 36.41 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.53 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 37.45 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.54 9 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 37.86 10 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 37.91 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker sold plan rankings, click here. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool. Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, for three-year investment performance and for five-year investment performance. The top performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile" the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology click here. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers (click here). These rankings are for periods ended Dec. 31, 2009 One-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 3.58 2 West Virginia SMART529 WV Direct 20.41 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 26.95 4 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 27.02 5 Alabama College Counts 529 Fund 28.62 6 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 29.55 7 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 29.77 8 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan - Client Direct Series 30.71 9 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 33.24 10 South Dakota CollegeAccess 529 (Direct-sold) 34.37 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 18.68 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 21.32 3 Florida Florida College Investment Plan 26.35 4 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 33.50 5 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.43 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 34.71 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 36.21 8 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 36.47 9 Missouri MOST - Missouri's 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.88 10 Nevada The Upromise College Fund 37.94 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 27.05 2 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 27.46 3 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.89 4 Nebraska College Savings Plan of Nebraska (Direct-sold) 36.37 5 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 36.41 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.53 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 37.45 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.54 9 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 37.86 10 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 37.91 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker sold plan rankings, click here. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool. 2009 Plan Performance Rankings Q4 Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, for three-year investment performance and for five-year investment performance. The top performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile" the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology click here. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers (click here). These rankings are for periods ended Dec. 31, 2009 One-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 3.58 2 West Virginia SMART529 WV Direct 20.41 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 26.95 4 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 27.02 5 Alabama College Counts 529 Fund 28.62 6 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 29.55 7 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 29.77 8 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan - Client Direct Series 30.71 9 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 33.24 10 South Dakota CollegeAccess 529 (Direct-sold) 34.37 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 18.68 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 21.32 3 Florida Florida College Investment Plan 26.35 4 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 33.50 5 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.43 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 34.71 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 36.21 8 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 36.47 9 Missouri MOST - Missouri's 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.88 10 Nevada The Upromise College Fund 37.94 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 27.05 2 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 27.46 3 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.89 4 Nebraska College Savings Plan of Nebraska (Direct-sold) 36.37 5 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 36.41 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.53 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 37.45 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.54 9 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 37.86 10 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 37.91 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker sold plan rankings, click here. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool. Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, for three-year investment performance and for five-year investment performance. The top performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile" the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology click here. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers (click here). These rankings are for periods ended Dec. 31, 2009 One-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 3.58 2 West Virginia SMART529 WV Direct 20.41 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 26.95 4 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 27.02 5 Alabama College Counts 529 Fund 28.62 6 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 29.55 7 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 29.77 8 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan - Client Direct Series 30.71 9 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 33.24 10 South Dakota CollegeAccess 529 (Direct-sold) 34.37 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 18.68 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 21.32 3 Florida Florida College Investment Plan 26.35 4 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 33.50 5 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.43 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 34.71 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 36.21 8 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 36.47 9 Missouri MOST - Missouri's 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.88 10 Nevada The Upromise College Fund 37.94 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 27.05 2 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 27.46 3 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.89 4 Nebraska College Savings Plan of Nebraska (Direct-sold) 36.37 5 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 36.41 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.53 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 37.45 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.54 9 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 37.86 10 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 37.91 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker sold plan rankings, click here. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool. 2009 Plan Performance Rankings Q4 Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, for three-year investment performance and for five-year investment performance. The top performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile" the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology click here. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers (click here). These rankings are for periods ended Dec. 31, 2009 One-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 3.58 2 West Virginia SMART529 WV Direct 20.41 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 26.95 4 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 27.02 5 Alabama College Counts 529 Fund 28.62 6 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 29.55 7 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 29.77 8 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan - Client Direct Series 30.71 9 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 33.24 10 South Dakota CollegeAccess 529 (Direct-sold) 34.37 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 18.68 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 21.32 3 Florida Florida College Investment Plan 26.35 4 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 33.50 5 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.43 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 34.71 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 36.21 8 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 36.47 9 Missouri MOST - Missouri's 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.88 10 Nevada The Upromise College Fund 37.94 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 27.05 2 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 27.46 3 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.89 4 Nebraska College Savings Plan of Nebraska (Direct-sold) 36.37 5 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 36.41 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.53 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 37.45 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.54 9 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 37.86 10 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 37.91 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker sold plan rankings, click here. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool. Each quarter Savingforcollege.com analyzes the investment performance figures for thousands of 529 portfolios and ranks the 529 savings plans from best to worst for one-year investment performance, for three-year investment performance and for five-year investment performance. The top performing 529 plans In producing our rankings, we compared the reported investment performance of a subset of portfolios from each 529 savings plan. The lower the "percentile" the better the ranking. For more details on our methodology click here. We ranked plans that consumers can enroll in directly (see below), as well as those sold through brokers (click here). These rankings are for periods ended Dec. 31, 2009 One-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 3.58 2 West Virginia SMART529 WV Direct 20.41 3 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 26.95 4 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 27.02 5 Alabama College Counts 529 Fund 28.62 6 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 29.55 7 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 29.77 8 Maine NextGen College Investing Plan - Client Direct Series 30.71 9 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 33.24 10 South Dakota CollegeAccess 529 (Direct-sold) 34.37 See the full list of one-year direct-sold rankings. Three-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 18.68 2 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 21.32 3 Florida Florida College Investment Plan 26.35 4 Nevada The Vanguard 529 Savings Plan 33.50 5 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.43 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 34.71 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 36.21 8 Ohio Ohio CollegeAdvantage 529 Savings Plan 36.47 9 Missouri MOST - Missouri's 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.88 10 Nevada The Upromise College Fund 37.94 See the full list of three-year direct-sold rankings. Five-year performance ranking Updated Feb. 24, 2010 Rank State Plan Percentile 1 Kansas Schwab 529 College Savings Plan 27.05 2 Nevada USAA College Savings Plan 27.46 3 Montana Pacific Life Funds 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) MT 34.89 4 Nebraska College Savings Plan of Nebraska (Direct-sold) 36.37 5 Maryland College Savings Plans of Maryland - College Investment Plan 36.41 6 South Carolina Future Scholar 529 College Savings Plan (Direct-sold) 36.53 7 Wisconsin EdVest (Direct-sold) 37.45 8 Alaska University of Alaska College Savings Plan 37.54 9 Rhode Island CollegeBoundfund (Direct-sold, Alternative R) 37.86 10 Alaska T. Rowe Price College Savings Plan 37.91 See the full list of five-year direct-sold rankings. For broker sold plan rankings, click here. How to rank 529 plan performance Ranking over 3,000 investment options is no easy task, considering the wide variety of options found in 529 savings plans, and it requires a special methodology. Step one: We select specific portfolios from each 529 plan that can be compared on an apples-to-apples basis to portfolios in other 529 plans based on their allocation among stocks, bonds and short-term instruments (money market and guaranteed investments). We've set up seven different asset-allocation categories ranging from 100 percent equity to 100 percent short-term. Step two: Within each of the seven categories, we compare historical performance of the selected portfolios and assign each plan a percentile ranking between one (best) and 100 (worst). Separate rankings are developed for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. Step three: We take the average of each 529 plan's percentile rankings in the seven asset-allocation categories to produce a combined or "composite" percentile ranking. We then produce reports showing how the 529 plans rank against each other in their composite percentile rankings. Note: We currently produce these composite rankings for one-year, three-year and five-year performance. For a more in-depth explanation of our methodology, please read our white paper. See the one-year direct-sold, three-year direct-sold and five-year direct-sold rankings. More information Links to our full report on the composite rankings for this quarter are provided below for the direct-sold 529 plans. Only our Premium subscribers have access to composite rankings for advisor-sold 529 plans, to the underlying data supporting the rankings and to separate one-year, three-year and five-year rankings for each of the seven different asset-allocation categories. In addition, subscribers can easily look up the historical performance for every 529 portfolio in every available share class by using our Fee and Performance Lookup Tool.

Morality Of Abortion Morality In Different Context - 2750 Words

Morality Of Abortion: Morality In Different Context (Essay Sample) Content: Morality of AbortionStudents Name:School Affiliation:1.0 IntroductionThe issue of morality in humans is one that tends to divide people in terms of opinion. This division arises from the understanding of what exactly entails morality. Apparently, one action perceived as moral to one group is likely to be viewed otherwise by another. One such an issue that has attracted intense debate on the case of morality is abortion. In the past, some Supreme Court decisions have challenged the conventional understanding of morality when it comes to abortion. While it is easy to accuse one group of their positions, the issue of morality is somewhat precarious. Individuals that procure abortion argue on the basis of morality and pro-choice. Conversely, those opposed to abortion contest on the basis of pro-life. Besides elaborating how morality impacts the human decision, explaining pro-life and pro-choice positions, this paper describes the morality of abortion and when it could be termed as immoral.2.0 Understanding morality2.1 Morality in different contextFrom the onset, it is imperative to define morality to ensure there is no confusion on what it entails. Often, people start explaining morality from the side of what is wrong rather than what it is right. In short, morality is concerned with doing that which is right. Additionally, morality can be explained as an acted obligation or duty (Simpson, 2014). In all these explanations then, morality is universal as opposed to being local. It is equally important to note that morals differ with different cultures. For instance, in some cultures driver drive on the left side while in other countries it is the right side. In such context, the morals are relative. Nonetheless, some morals are universal irrespective of context and cultures. For instance, committing murder is universally immoral regardless of a country, religion or justifications.2.2 Morality and absolute truthMorality can also be understood using th e absolute truth principles. An absolute truth refers to a fixed, unalterable, invariable or inflexible fact. This argument asserts that some facts cannot be changed at all since they are absolute (Furst, 2009). For instance, a square is not round-shaped, a bull cannot produce milk and so on. In the case of abortion, the absolute truth can be explained that if a mother seeks an abortion after a few months, a fetus is killed. In such a case, this action constitutes immorality because the action is universally wrong unless when done at a specialists advice.2.3 Principles behind MoralityBehind morality lies a set of principles of conduct and values individuals, institutions, and societies hold. Sometimes, these values and principles are not necessarily shared similarly with other societies. For instance, one particular group might argue that practicing certain habits tantamount to moral decay while another argues otherwise. In such a case, morality can be traced back to beliefs. Also, morality can also arise from ones set of principles, and this can be demonstrated through decisions undertaken as well as interpretations of varied situations (Simpson, 2014). Therefore, morality is derived that which is widely accepted coupled with individual values and social norms. That is why the Roe v. Wade case was not unanimous in decision making. The interpretation of the constitution was different, yet the issue at hand was one.2.4 Morality Influenced By HappinessMorality, also, has to do with doing that which increases happiness, satisfaction and long-term success as opposed to short-term gratification. For instance, in a study that sought to analyze how individuals prioritized competence, sociability, and morality, the results bent toward morality. Apparently, the respondents indicated that they place more importance on morality than sociability and competence (Leach, Ellemers Barreto, 2007). In another discussion, people value morality as it is thought to have rewards in this life even without invoking any religious teachings. Hence, abortion can then be analyzed on its aftermath ramifications, if any, as opposed to its immediate reaction. In other words, answering the question of whether a woman finds satisfaction after the procedure would help in underlining what morality entails.2.5 What morality is notIn understanding what morality entails, it is important to comprehend what it is not. Often, individuals and groups impose their beliefs on others claiming them to be morals. However, Domingo (2014) argued that morality does not consist of religious or personal beliefs and values. It is for this reason that religious groups fail to convince the political class on the issue of abortion. Many groups argue from religious beliefs. For instance, many groups do not argue on the precise morality of abortion but on the basis of killing a fetus. However, a fetus is never formed until after a few weeks, thus nullifying this argument. Morality is not com pelling others to adhere to ones beliefs and moral code. Rather, morality has to do with what is universally acceptable.3.0 Moralitys impact on human decisionThe decisions humans engage in are significantly influenced by morality more than by anything else. This assertion has been proved countless times even in the confines of courts of law. For instance, this point was evidently confirmed in the Griswold v. Connecticut (1965). In this case, Griswold and Le Buxton were charged with contravening the 1879 Comstock Act that prevented any issuance or assistance of contraceptives. Apparently, the two directors of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut had helped married couples acquire contraceptives. This action was in direct contravention of the Act that banned the use of contraceptives (Bailey, 2010). Also, the law extended to anybody that counseled, assisted, caused or abetted in committing the supposed crime, and the offenders would either receive a maximum one-year sentence , fine or both.In the subsequent court case, the two directors were fined $100 each, but the duo appealed to the Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut. However, the appeal did not result in a different ruling as the court in Connecticut upheld the earlier decision. Still not satisfied, the two appealed to the US Supreme Court with claims that the conviction was a violation of the US constitution. In the subsequent review that occurred in 1965, the court ruled in a 7-2 decision in the favor of the directors. The findings were that the law had severely violated the constitutions right to marital privacy. As such, this law was not applicable to the married, and that right to privacy as provided for in the constitution could not be infringed (Bailey, 2010). Despite this majority vote, two of the courts judges did not agree with the ruling.3.1 Analysis3.1.1 Morality and NormsThe case above presents valuable lessons concerning morality and human decisions. Evidently, morality impacts the human decision in various ways. For instance, the seven justices that overruled the decision by the other courts may have been influenced more by morality than by the law. Whereas the argument was supposedly based on the countrys constitution, the judges made a moral decision. To the judges, it was immoral for any other law to interfere with that which was commonly and widely accepted as an institution of marriage. In fact, in the ruling, the courts Justice William Douglas noted that observing the law would not be possible without violating those fundamental principles of liberty and justice  (Casillas, Enns Wohlfarth, 2010 p.77). In its ruling, the court made a decision influenced more by social norms than anything else.3.1.2 Morality influences perception, hence decision.Despite the majority overruling the earlier decision by the other courts, the Supreme Court ruling was not unanimous. Two justices disagreed with the ruling, confirming how morality influences the human decis ion. For instance, Justice Arthur Goldberg contested that the Bill of Rights in the Ninth Amendment explains that other laws are not to be rendered ineffective in the pursuance of the right to privacy (Casillas et al., 2010). Even though the law might influence this position in the constitution, the individual is not absolutely reasoning from a legal perspective. Rather, Furst (2009) asserted that their morality is always the first driver of a position, and the legal stance is only a confirmation of their moral standing. Essentially, morality impacts the human decision in the sense that individuals focus on that which appears to be right thing to do.4.0 Morality of AbortionUpon understanding that morality does indeed influence human decisions, it is important to analyze the morality of abortion. In the Roe v. Wade, the morality of abortion was tested. In this case, Roe was a Texas resident who intended to terminate a pregnancy through abortion. Conversely, the Texas laws prohibited such actions unless done to save a pregnant mothers life. In this case, there was no evidence that Roe had any complications that warranted the procuring of abortion. The Supreme Court (SC) had to address the question of whether the US Constitution provided for a womans right to abortion. In a 7-2 ruling, the SC held that every womans right to abortion fell within the right to privacy . In reaching this decision, the court cited Eisenstadt v. Baird and Griswold v. Connecticut case and argued that it was provided for in the fourteenth amendment (Casillas et al., 2010).4.1 Morality vs RightIn this case, the c...