No. of Recommendations: 54
This will be my last post here. Thanks to all that have engaged in constructive posts on this board over the years. This board has degenerated into something that I can no longer be proud to be involved with. Even some folks that I respect, have thrown in with a board culture that cannot tell the difference between witty repartee and childish personal attacks. I was the one that FA'd Galeno. His attempts to incite others to engage in personal attacks, with the tacit support of some on this board, was one of the final straws for me.

Regards,
FMO

P.S. No response is required or desired. I just didn't want to leave without expressing my gratitude to those that deserve it.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 20
FMO: This will be my last post here.

Bummer. I hope you will change your mind.
Ben
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
This will be my last post here.

Regards, FMO


This board is far worse off for your departure. Maybe you will come back one day. I certainly hope so.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
I, too, hope you'll reconsider, FMO.

I've enjoyed reading your posts on real estate investing and landlording. Even though I'm not particularly interested in doing those things myself, I've learned a lot about them from reading your posts.

I especially appreciated your prompt response when I posed the question of how I, as a prospective tenant, should deal with landlords regarding my employment and income status as a very early retiree.

I also am dismayed by some of the recent childish antics displayed here. But I keep telling myself, "This, too, shall pass."



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I was the one that FA'd Galeno. His attempts to incite others to engage in personal attacks, with the tacit support of some on this board, was one of the final straws for me.

Personally, what I found more shocking than anything that Galeno said in the posts in question was the embracement of the thoughts expressed by Galeno in a follow-up post by intercst.

I believe that, as a board leader, intercst should be held to a higher standard. He possesses influence over what happens on this board, and should put the interests of the board above any personal discomfort that a line of inquiry may cause him, in my view.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
This board is far worse off for your departure.

I agree. FoolMeOnce made a great contrinution.

You are new here, Catherine, so you may not be aware of the times that this has happened in the past. I thought that wanderer was the best poster on the board during his days here. He left for similar reasons. Reading between the lines of posts put up by some others, it's hard not to wonder if this problem played a role in the decisions of some other strong posters to leave. I myself have gone for long time-periods without posting several times when the friction one must work through to make a point with which intercst is not in perfect agreement became too much for me.

It's a longstanding board problem.






Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
This board is far worse off for your departure.

I agree. FoolMeOnce made a great contrinution.

You are new here, Catherine, so you may not be aware of the times that this has happened in the past. I thought that wanderer was the best poster on the board during his days here. He left for similar reasons. Reading between the lines of posts put up by some others, it's hard not to wonder if this problem played a role in the decisions of some other strong posters to leave. I myself have gone for long time-periods without posting several times when the friction one must work through to make a point with which intercst is not in perfect agreement became too much for me.

It's a longstanding board problem.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I also am dismayed by some of the recent childish antics displayed here. But I keep telling myself, "This, too, shall pass."

I see some positive signs, andrew61. I hope that the posters who have the most to offer (I include FoolMeOnce and you both in the group) do not become too dicouraged by the outward appearances of what has been going on here the last three months.

Sometimes, things look darkest before the dawn. The board is struggling with a problem, and I believe it is working up the courage to deal with it. We need to do what we can to offer some encouragement to those who most want to see the board become a learning resource. The more of that type we lose, the harder a job we face trying to get things moving in the right direction.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
FMO,

Please at least continue to post on the Real estate investing board. You have provide huge amounts of insight into a subject that interests me.

It is because of folks like you that I ante'd up the fee for the fool.


Landog,
Your 1C591 bro
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 25
I believe that, as a board leader, intercst should be held to a higher standard.

What is this board leader crap?! Geez, can't you get it through your skull that he requested that the board be opened, but he's no more a leader than--heck, than I am! That's why you can post until you're blue in the face and he's got nothing to combat it with but a more compelling argument--which is no more than anyone has--or a snide comment, but what's that?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
FMO,

I've been around the Fool almost as long as you have, and I also know how frustrating it can be when the signal-to-noise ratio goes into the crapper. But, I've become a bit more philosophical lately, and if you look at my posts over the last month, you'll know why. Life's too damn short to allow people to bug you. There are plenty of Fools who used to bug the crap out of me, but you've got to let it go.

So, lately, I've decided to satirize things that annoy me. It's more fun than I thought it would be. Plus, I end up making myself laugh sometimes. My post here earlier today, fr'instance:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17789647

You really didn't think the part about Grover the Talking Squirrel was funny? C'mon, that's some of my better stuff. Maybe I'm just loopy, but I think it's pretty funny.

C'mon, FMO. Don't let the b**tards win.

Dean
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
deanwoodward offers,

FMO,

I've been around the Fool almost as long as you have, and I also know how frustrating it can be when the signal-to-noise ratio goes into the crapper. But, I've become a bit more philosophical lately, and if you look at my posts over the last month, you'll know why. Life's too damn short to allow people to bug you. There are plenty of Fools who used to bug the crap out of me, but you've got to let it go.



That's what I've been saying for the last 3 months. If there is anyone on this board that "bugs" you (me included) please put them (or me) in your p-box. It's safe, effective, and doesn't infringe on the rights of the 80% of the board that doesn't care one way or the other.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 9
What is this board leader crap?! Geez, can't you get it through your skull that he requested that the board be opened, but he's no more a leader than--heck, than I am!

You and I do not agree on this point, Catherine. This place is a community. Communities have leaders. That's the way it is.

I mean no disrespect to you in saying this, but if you posted false claims on the subject of safe withdrawal rates, it would not cause me any serious problem in getting my message out to the members of the board who have expressed an interest in hearing it. When intercst posts a false claim, it causes a far bigger problem. If I do not respond, it appears in the minds of some that because of his expertise he was able to make a point that I was not aware of. If I do respond, I am trapped in a debate that he is willing to extend for months rather than address any of the core issues.

Once intercst disrupts an investing thread of mine, there is no practical means of that thread being used as a means of advancing knowledge of the board on the subject, Catherine. Some subjects are more complicated than others. There are many here who do not understand all the ins and outs of the safe withdrawal rate question, and intercst is skilled in maintaining the level of confusion needed to ensure that things stay that way. There is no magic 50-word post that I can put up that will cut through the fog that has built up in the course of his three years of posting on this subject.

You can post until you're blue in the face and he's got nothing to combat it with but a more compelling argument

If you had lots of free time, Catherine, I would suggest that you go back to the first post in this debate and follow them all through until the end. I've gone through them all twice so far, and will do so at least once more before the debate resumes in three or four months. The debate transcript makes a powerful case if it can be read with care.

If you cannot take my word on this, take the word of JWR1945. He has said that the only reason he has been able to read the entire debate is that he is already retired and thus has the time required. He has posted assurances to the board that, if the posts are read with care, board members will see that the case I have presented is a reasonable one.

I understand why there are few able to take this step, and expect to do some things before resumption of the debate to bring some useful synopsis to those who have not had the time to read all the posts. Andrew61 posted an idea the other day that I believe holds some promise. He said that, while he could not make out my argument given the confusing atmostphere in which it has been presented, he believes that if someone could meet with hocus for some time outside of this board that he or she would learn some "important" things about the safe withdrawal rare concept.

I'm thinking of sending Andrew61 an e-mail before the debate resumes in which I will offer to meet with him for just that purpose. I will purchase a ticket to Chicago, reserve a hotel room for a few nights, and spend any time available to Andrew going over the concept of safe withdrawal rates until every question in his mind about what I am saying has been answered. Perhaps he will be able to serve as a go-between, allowing the board to hear the ideas from a screenname that has not been dragged through the mud for three-plus months.

I have some other ideas. The goal in each is to find a way around those trying to block debate and permit the board members interested in learning something valuable about this important subject. The transcript of the debate so far is a rich source of possibilities in this regard.

or a snide comment, but what's that?

Snide comments are not the problem.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 7
That's what I've been saying for the last 3 months. If there is anyone on this board that "bugs" you (me included) please put them (or me) in your p-box. It's safe, effective, and doesn't infringe on the rights of the 80% of the board that doesn't care one way or the other.

Nor would it infringe on the rights of 80 percent of the board that doesn't care one way or the other if you were to agree to stop posting false claims about safe withdrawal rates on investing threads I start, intercst. If you are looking for a place too express your thoughts, there are hundreds of other threads each month on which you can post them without worry of disrupting the converation I am trying to hold with that group on this board that has expressed interest in hearing the other side of the story.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 21
Nor would it infringe on the rights of 80 percent of the board that doesn't care one way or the other if you were to agree to stop posting false claims about safe withdrawal rates on investing threads I start, intercst. If you are looking for a place too express your thoughts, there are hundreds of other threads each month on which you can post them without worry of disrupting the converation I am trying to hold with that group on this board that has expressed interest in hearing the other side of the story.

http://www.topica.com/create/index2.html

That's all it takes, Hocus... Give it a shot.

stop posting false claims about safe withdrawal rates on investing threads I start

That's quite a claim, Hocus. Has the student become the master?

Initially, everytime Intercst interjects in your threads, it's to correct an assumption or extrapolation on your part that simply has no basis in fact. Then, you get upset with him and tell all what a horrible disruption he's being. I think he's being quite generous in taking the time to supply facts.

You've supplied no useful facts so far. What you've possibly managed to do is to encourage someone who's FIRE'd, who might have "stayed the course" with the Intercst SWR plan, to begin tinkering with timing the market, thus possibly ruining their financial status. You've offered no alternative other than "the SWR may be lower" and "some people may not stick to the plan when the market's down"... No kidding?!?

It's pretty simple really. The past suggests that the SWR for a 30 year payout period is roughly 4% with the proper mix of stocks to cash/bonds. Each of us must evaluate our own risk tolerance (in this case, I would call it "volatility tolerance") and our potential to "stick to the plan" through a market like the one we're experiencing. After making that judgement on ourselves (we are the only ones capable of making that judgement on ourselves, btw) we can adjust the SWR to a lower rate and toy with the mix of stocks to cash/bonds (still using Intercst's spreadsheet) until we have a better comfort level.

Of course, this WILL delay retirement, because you will need much more money for a 2.3475692340123% withdrawal rate and a 30.35732% stocks/69.64268 cash/bonds portfolio (check the math) than for a 4% withdrawal rate, but that is the price each individual must make for their own piece of mind.

How much more is there to discuss really?

Draggon
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
I thought that wanderer was the best poster on the board during his days here. He left for similar reasons.


You can add ptsurmr to that list.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
What is this board leader crap?! Geez, can't you get it through your skull that he requested that the board be opened, but he's no more a leader than--heck, than I am!


Sorry, you can only recommend a post to the Best of once.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
That's all it takes, Hocus... Give it a shot.

You've missed some posts, Draggon. It's by no means your fault. I've announced that I will start my own board here at Motley Fool in about six month's time, when other demands on my time ease up enough for me to put in the time and energy it will take to make that board a success.

hocus: stop posting false claims about safe withdrawal rates on investing threads I start

Draggon:That's quite a claim, Hocus. Has the student become the master?


It appears from a review of the debate transcript that I have developed over time a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of the safe withdrawal rate concept than intercst. It was not my desire that that happen. This is not my favorite Retire Early subject.

I'm willing to revive the goofy Columbo-type persona on numbers matters if a way can be found for me to do that and still put up an occasional nondisrupted thread on investing. I enjoy that persona more than the one currently in evidence. But I want my full $30 of value out of this experience. Obtaining value for my money has become a priority issue for me over the years.

Initially, everytime Intercst interjects in your threads, it's to correct an assumption or extrapolation on your part that simply has no basis in fact.

That's what he says. I'm suggesting that some fair-minded board member might go through the debate transcript post by post and report back to the board on any conclusions they come to as a result of that experience.

What you've possibly managed to do is to encourage someone who's FIRE'd, who might have "stayed the course" with the Intercst SWR plan, to begin tinkering with timing the market, thus possibly ruining their financial status

I oppose the practice of timing as you describe it here. Check out the first post in the "What Berntsein Says" thread for details.

You've offered no alternative other than "the SWR may be lower"

I haven't said it may be lower. I've said that any reasonable person who looks at all the data available to us at this time will conclude that it is lower.

The past suggests that the SWR for a 30 year payout period is roughly 4% with the proper mix of stocks to cash/bonds.

It used to be "the past shows with 100 percent certitude that..." In the last few days, it's become "the past suggests that..." I'm gaining traction.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
You can add ptsurmr to that list.

That's right, StubbleJumper. It's an always growing list.

And the people on the list don't vote in any of the many polls we take on this board. The polls don't provide an accurate assessment of what the community of people interested in early retirement think about any of the questions posed because opinions of the group that wants to be able to learn about the subject matter while retaining their self respect do not register.



Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
hocus: "if you were to agree to stop posting false claims about safe withdrawal rates on investing threads"

If you accused me of posting false claims, I would consider that libel. Does anyone else feel the same way?

Main Entry: 1li·bel
Pronunciation: 'lI-b&l
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, written declaration, from Middle French, from Latin libellus, diminutive of liber book
Date: 14th century
1 a : a written statement in which a plaintiff in certain courts sets forth the cause of action or the relief sought b archaic : a handbill especially attacking or defaming someone
2 a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression b (1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures (4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If you accused me of posting false claims, I would consider that libel.: "A statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt"

I can go that road. I've got a rich debate transcript to work from.

It might not be an entirely bad idea for anyone who made any statements in the record that they are not entirely comfortable with at this point to correct any false impressions they have left the board with prior to the beginning of Phase Two. I can't tell you what to do, of course. It's a suggestion.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
for those who don't wish to read thruogh the tomes of the verbose H:

I've announced that I will start my own board here at Motley Fool in about six month's time, when other demands on my time ease up enough for me to put in the time and energy it will take to make that board a success.

AH.... H is spending 6 hours a day responding to posts, but doesn't have time to be a board moderator? Posts 30 or 40 times a day? More than intercst?


H: It appears from a review of the debate transcript that I have developed over time a deeper and more sophisticated understanding of the safe withdrawal rate concept than intercst<i/>

Other: You've offered no alternative other than "the SWR may be lower"

I haven't said it may be lower. I've said that any reasonable person who looks at all the data available to us at this time will conclude that it is lower.

Hmmm.....thus, if hocus is a 'reasonable person', he has CONCLUDED that it will be lower. And he didn't say that??????????

OH, he claims he did NOT say it. Therefore, hocus must not be a reasonable person, if you follow his logic. Do you? Should we?




.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
hocus complains,

<<<That's what I've been saying for the last 3 months. If there is anyone on this board that "bugs" you (me included) please put them (or me) in your p-box. It's safe, effective, and doesn't infringe on the rights of the 80% of the board that doesn't care one way or the other.>>>

Nor would it infringe on the rights of 80 percent of the board that doesn't care one way or the other if you were to agree to stop posting false claims about safe withdrawal rates on investing threads I start, intercst. If you are looking for a place too express your thoughts, there are hundreds of other threads each month on which you can post them without worry of disrupting the converation I am trying to hold with that group on this board that has expressed interest in hearing the other side of the story.


You mean like refuting false claims like this, see link:

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17780897

Well, hocus, it seems like you have at least one convert, assuming you voted in that poll yourself. <grin>

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 14
You mean like refuting false claims like this, see link:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17780897

From the link:
A key feature of Hocus's argument is misreading Bernstein's 2% withdrawal rate for stocks as being based on past stock returns. Bernstein used a 3.5% average real return for stocks and Fisher's Dividend Discount Model to get the 2% withdrawal rate. The last 130 years of stock market history show a real return for stocks of over 6%.

Actually I think this is a fair example of what has been going on here for the last month. You offer up a sound bite that misrepresents what hocus said, and then you slam him for it. Of course you keep the sound bite close enough to what he said that someone not reading hocus's posts closely will think you are spot on.

Hocus never once claimed that the 2% figure came directly from previous stock returns in the way your SWR figures do. He claimed that Bernstein derived his number without assuming the market will behave differently than the past. A subtle distinction, but a true one. In the past stock markets have exhibited a characteristic of reverting to the mean valuation. If the valuation you start from is higher than any time in the past (as it was in 2000), then the reversion to the mean will produce returns worse than any time in the past. All the while, the stock market behaves like it always has in at least one important sense.

Of course it is easy to ignore that part of the issue. Hocus couldn't make this point without 5 people jumping on him and pummelling him with 'You don't understand 1st grade arithmetic. Can't you see 3.5% is less than 6%'. You are predicting the future will be worse than the past.'

It was ridiculous. Now it may be true that hocus wasn't especially clear in presenting his thoughts on the subject, but never once did he claim that the 2% figure that Bernstien spoke of came from an analysis like the one you based your study on. You, and others, stuck those words in his mouth, and proceeded to ridicule him for them.

Ben
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
hocus: I haven't said it may be lower. I've said that any reasonable person who looks at all the data available to us at this time will conclude that it is lower.

Telegraph: Hmmm.....thus, if hocus is a 'reasonable person', he has CONCLUDED that it will be lower. And he didn't say that??????????


The word I did not say is "may." My position is that any reasonable person who looks at the data will conclude that it is lower. If there is someone who concludes differently, I'm OK with that so long as they do not state their conclusions as certifiable fact on investing threads that I start.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
You mean like refuting false claims like this, see link:
http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=17780897
Well, hocus, it seems like you have at least one convert, assuming you voted in that poll yourself. <grin>
intercst


The subject matter of that poll was a nonsense question that has no relevance to any legitimate issue raised in this debate. This is the sort of thing I refer to as "diversion." I do not want to have to respond to "questions" of this sort on investment threads that I start.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
It used to be "the past shows with 100 percent certitude that..." In the last few days, it's become "the past suggests that..." I'm gaining traction.

I mis-spoke myself, and you took advantage of that to try to prove a point. The past DOES show with 100 percent certitude that the SWR for a 30 year payout period is rougly 4%. Even you can't argue with historical fact.

Now, there IS some leniency available for how well those projections will pan out for the future. But, as others have said, the past is all we have to predict the future. That, in a nutshell, is your whole point. You are living in the disclaimer that every mutual fund and investment advice firm use:

Past performance is not a guarantee of future returns.

Also, I noticed you didn't bother responding to the actual meat of my message in the last two paragraphs of my post.

Draggon
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Of course, this WILL delay retirement, because you will need much more money for a 2.3475692340123% withdrawal rate and a 30.35732% stocks/69.64268 cash/bonds portfolio (check the math) than for a 4% withdrawal rate, but that is the price each individual must make for their own piece of mind.

How much more is there to discuss really?

Draggon



Oh no...you had to ask him...

I'm guessing "months."



EuroNigelHufnal ["But this one goes to 11..."]
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Actually I think this is a fair example of what has been going on here for the last month. You offer up a sound bite that misrepresents what hocus said, and then you slam him for it. Of course you keep the sound bite close enough to what he said that someone not reading hocus's posts closely will think you are spot on.

Thank you yet again, BenSolar Most of all, thank you for spending enough time on the debate transcript to make sense of it. I know that that was not a terribly fun experience.

It may be true that hocus wasn't especially clear in presenting his thoughts on the subject

I've done my level best at every stage of the debate, BenSolar. The words do not travel from God's mind through my own. I am a flawed human being. But I never once put up a post designed to trick this board into believing something that was not true so that I could win points in this debate.

Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I think that most people can make up there own minds about what is safe and what is not.If valuations are getting out of whack please feel free to change the allocations in your portfolio so you can sleep at night everybody.Intercst says it is not wise to play to much with the allocation of 80/20,i think.Hocus says if valuations get out of hand play with your allocations until you feel comfortable.Everyone here is either retired early or is probably kinda close,so they probably aren't that stupid and they can make up their own minds what to do.I happen to be mostly in intercsts camp in that i feel it can be dangerous,but be no means am i saying live in a vacuum and never consider changing allocations.It's impossible to say what the future swr will be no matter how high the pe's were in 2000.Is there a chance it may be lower,you bettcha.Please take that into consideration when retiring early,if not you may need to work again.



2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 6
Also, i wish this board wasn't so damn touchy-feely. This isn't a sewing club or a drama club for that matter. Are the people who are complaining about this only children or never had an argument before.If someone insults you on a message board big friggin deal.I know i've learned alot from this board and i think the confrontation is gonna happen.If you can't take someone disagreeing with you be like FMO and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.If you get insulted so what.Someone on a computer somewhere said something bad about you,WOW.

2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I mis-spoke myself, and you took advantage of that to try to prove a point

No, Draggon, I did not take advantage of anything. You are perfectly free to phrase it more carefully now. I accept that the stronger form of the statement is your true position.

My point was that, if you read the debate transcript, you will see other evidence of backtracking in recent days. There was a time early in this debate when there was no one from the other side accepting my claim that the intercst study does not take into account the overvaluation issue in an adequate way. The common claim now is that a retirement starting today with a 4 percent withdrawal rate may well go bust because of excessive valuations, but it is not the study's fault because the negative effects of the overvaluation will only be realized by investors in the future. That's a big change.

What that shows, I think, is that people who expressed grand confidence in their understanding of the study in the early days had not thought it through to the degree they pretended they had. I spent less time reading the words of the intercst study and more time thinking and learning about the safe withdrawal rate concept in general. Thus, I do not suffer from the preconceptions as to what the concept of a safe wtihdrawal rate means that are tripping up a good number of those on the other side of the debate.

The past DOES show with 100 percent certitude that the SWR for a 30 year payout period is rougly 4%. Even you can't argue with historical fact.

Watch me.

Now, there IS some leniency available for how well those projections will pan out for the future.

There had better be. Since stocks investors have never in the past obtained the sort of performance from this investment class needed to support a 4 percent withdrawal rate at these valuation levels, I see no reason to believe that stock investors in the future will either.

The past is all we have to predict the future.

There are all sorts of things from "the past" that we can use to make reasonable assessments of what may happen in the future. The valuation approach described in the Bernstein book relies on knowledge of how markets have performed in the past to provide the insights it provides.

I don't suggest that anyone ignore the insights of the SWR study. I suggest that they combine those insights with insights provided by other tools that do a better job on the questions not addressed as well by the SWR study. Making use of all of the data speaking to the question of, How have stocks performed for investors over the past 130 years?, I believe that you can obtain an answer in which you can place greater confidence than you could with an answer that was based on a review of only some of the critical factors bearing on the question you are trying to answer.

I noticed you didn't bother responding to the actual meat of my message in the last two paragraphs of my post.

I'm responding to a lot of questions and comments quickly, Draggon. If I ignored the part that you consider the meat, would you please repost that section in response to this post of mine, drawing my attention to the matter you most need a response to?
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
That's what I've been saying for the last 3 months. If there is anyone on this board that "bugs" you (me included) please put them (or me) in your p-box. It's safe, effective, and doesn't infringe on the rights of the 80% of the board that doesn't care one way or the other.

intercst


TMF has given us a tool with the rec button to show our approval for a post, but the only way to voice our disapproval is to reply. Perhaps if they provide us with a raspberry button, there would be fewer bitching posts.

InParadise,
who thinks your percentages are more than a bit inflated.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
inparadise complains,

<<<That's what I've been saying for the last 3 months. If there is anyone on this board that "bugs" you (me included) please put them (or me) in your p-box. It's safe, effective, and doesn't infringe on the rights of the 80% of the board that doesn't care one way or the other.>>>

intercst

TMF has given us a tool with the rec button to show our approval for a post, but the only way to voice our disapproval is to reply. Perhaps if they provide us with a raspberry button, there would be fewer bitching posts.

InParadise,
who thinks your percentages are more than a bit inflated.


inparadise,

Please p-box me.

I'll consider it a great big raspberry, if that makes you fell better. <grin>

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
"If there is anyone on this board that "bugs" you (me included) please put them (or me) in your p-box." - intercst

Some of the "threads" annoy me so I put them in my p-box! Another thing that I've tried to do is not spend so much time on the computer, since I discovered that I was taking it way too seriously and spending way too much time on it! I am now reading the posts in threaded mode and skip entirely (except maybe for some of my favorite posters) those threads that are non-applicable to me. - Art
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I think that most people can make up there own minds about what is safe and what is not.

That sounds good to me.

Intercst says it is not wise to play to much with the allocation of 80/20,

He does not say that it is "unwise." If he said it were "unwise," he would be expressing an opinion, which all posters have a right to do on whatever threads they choose.

He is saying that to move to a different allocation is "irrational" as a matter of certifiable fact. This is not so. According the the data we now possess, a 50-50 allocation is optimal, so that is more rational than 80-20.

For a person to claim that his personal opinions represent scientific fact is disruptive to threads because it takes a good deal of effort to demonstrate the falsehood of such claims, especially when the person making the claim has authored a "study" of the issue.

People who gain credibility through the development of studies should employ that credibility for the good of the board.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 5
I was the one that FA'd Galeno. His attempts to incite others to engage in personal attacks, with the tacit support of some on this board, was one of the final straws for me.

Personally, what I found more shocking than anything that Galeno said in the posts in question was the embracement of the thoughts expressed by Galeno in a follow-up post by intercst.

I believe that, as a board leader, intercst should be held to a higher standard. He possesses influence over what happens on this board, and should put the interests of the board above any personal discomfort that a line of inquiry may cause him, in my view.


Hocus, that is crap. Intercst is not here to babysit everyone and monitor what goes on. His influence on this board is limited to what effort he wants to put into it. He is a better person than I am. I would told you to 'Stick it' many months ago.

He started this board to bring out discussion of early retirement, something that most people came here to read about. When I stumbled onto this board three years ago, I took the time to read almost everything that was posted, because it was retirement related. Now, I read most posts by Intercst, galeno, golfwaymore and telegraph because, when they aren't correcting you, they are discussing items that are of interest.

Hocus, you need to either grow up, or start a new board (if you haven't already) and take catherinecoy and the other babies there and play amongst yourself.

Regards,

Keith Jones
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
ariechert offers,

<<<If there is anyone on this board that "bugs" you (me included) please put them (or me) in your p-box." - intercst>>>

Some of the "threads" annoy me so I put them in my p-box! Another thing that I've tried to do is not spend so much time on the computer, since I discovered that I was taking it way too seriously and spending way too much time on it! I am now reading the posts in threaded mode and skip entirely (except maybe for some of my favorite posters) those threads that are non-applicable to me. - Art


As always, both you and golfwaymore offer sound and constructive advice to this board. We continue to see a lot of common sense wisdom emerging from the mountains of East Tennessee and North Georgia.

intercst
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
If you can't take someone disagreeing with you be like FMO and don't let the door hit you in the butt on the way out.

Or be like JWR1945 and BenSolar, and tell the truth about what you have seen, and you may not need to do without the insights of the FoolMeOnce's of the world in planning your early retirement. There's more than one way to play this, 2828,
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I prefer if people would stay and argue there point.I do want more than one point of view. I honestly even like reading your point of view Hocus,but i do think your point is hurt by the length of your posts and it's hard to read.I don't think anyone here takes Intercsts view as the only view and i think thats what is driving you crazy.Everybody here is a big boy/girl and hopefully wont retire solely because of Intercsts 4%swr.

2828
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
I prefer if people would stay and argue there point.I do want more than one point of view. I honestly even like reading your point of view Hocus,but i do think your point is hurt by the length of your posts and it's hard to read.I don't think anyone here takes Intercsts view as the only view and i think thats what is driving you crazy.Everybody here is a big boy/girl and hopefully wont retire solely because of Intercsts 4%swr.

Stop making sense, 2828, or we'll have nothing to argue about except that SOB in the White House.

sydsydsyd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
would you please repost that section in response to this post of mine, drawing my attention to the matter you most need a response to?

Certainly!

Each of us must evaluate our own risk tolerance (in this case, I would call it "volatility tolerance") and our potential to "stick to the plan" through a market like the one we're experiencing. After making that judgement on ourselves (we are the only ones capable of making that judgement on ourselves, btw) we can adjust the SWR to a lower rate and toy with the mix of stocks to cash/bonds (still using Intercst's spreadsheet) until we have a better comfort level.

Of course, this WILL delay retirement, because you will need much more money for a 2.3475692340123% withdrawal rate and a 30.35732% stocks/69.64268 cash/bonds portfolio (check the math) than for a 4% withdrawal rate, but that is the price each individual must make for their own piece of mind.

How much more is there to discuss really?


Draggon
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 4
Intercst is not here to babysit everyone and monitor what goes on.

Then he should stop monitoring my threads, and we have no problem.

I would have told you to 'Stick it' many months ago.

He did.

He started this board to bring out discussion of early retirement

There was a day when that appeared to be the agenda. Building on the good work of hundreds of fine posters, the board rose to a level of popularity where it became self-sustaining. Then the agenda was limited to discussions not of early retirement, but of one particular approach to early retirement favored by intercst. This is great with some members of the board, not so great with others.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
I don't think anyone here takes Intercsts view as the only view and i think thats what is driving you crazy.Everybody here is a big boy/girl and hopefully wont retire solely because of Intercsts 4%swr.

I understand, 2828. A big reason that I cannot get many worked up over this is that those who use the study are passionate about defending it, and those who do not feel that they have no dog in the fight.

I could convince people in five minutes if you could see the new information about early retirement you would possess in a year's time if the debate went forward. But that's all vague right now, so you don't see yourself as really losing anything.

The SWR study is itself a diversion. I have said that I would be happy never to mention the study again if I could post on other invsestment strategies and not have those threads disrupted by references to the study. But no dice.

Any alternate plan that offers a realistic approach to early retirement other than the one set forth in the study represents a threat to the study. He doesn't want you to know what you may need to know. He wants to limit you to the one approach he likes.

Which works fine in some circumstances. Not all though.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
It might not be an entirely bad idea for anyone who made any statements in the record that they are not entirely comfortable with at this point to correct any false impressions they have left the board with prior to the beginning of Phase Two. I can't tell you what to do, of course. It's a suggestion.

Or what? You'll sue them for libel?

Get a grip man. You're taking this persecution complex waaaaaaay too far.

And there's going to be a Phase Two?? Dear Lord. I vote we end it at Phase One.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Of course, this WILL delay retirement

That's the rub, Draggon Since the data says that you can retire sooner with a 50-50 allocation, I see no reason why people coming to this board should not be apprised of that reality.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
>And there's going to be a Phase Two?? Dear Lord. I vote we end it at Phase One.

It stopped being a productive discussion around Phase .1

Cheers,
madmikeyd
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
you say 50/50 and intercst says 80/20. People will decide for themselves in the end.It's not like people haven't read your point of view.Keep coming up with reasons you think so and people will either be persuaded or not.

"Hey Hocus don't carry the world upon your shoulders"


"Hey Hocus" 1968 Lennon/McCartney.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 8
T takes some liberty with re-writing a post:

hocus: I could convince people in five minutes if you could see the new information about early retirement you would possess in a year's time if the debate went forward. But that's all vague right now,...



Hocus thinks that he could 'convince' people in five minutes IF they could see the *** new information **** (see note 1) about early retirement (that) you would possess in a year's time IF the debate went forward. But that's all vague right now....

Note 1 - he has been asking for this informatin, which he suspects might exist but that is unobtainable, for 3 months and 500 posts, and so far, none of the board folks has admitted to having it hidden away.

And I suppose after a year that hocus still wouldn't have the information, even if others did, in a years time?

Are we to believe it will take a year of 60 posts a day before hocus gets his information? And then once he has it, it will take five minutes to read through his post with his 'conclusions' on his study?

I'm sorry, but you can argue till your wordprocessor runs out of words, but I'm not ready to be convinced of anything when the opening chapter fails third grade math and logic, and the explanations sound like responses from the ELIZA program that seems to be running and replying to six or eight posts in a row.

the hocus philosophy is summed up in 5 sentences

1) No one can 'predict' the future, and the past always needs to be 'interpreted' and 'opinions' formed about 'what really happened', so we can be more 'predicitve' about the future.

2) People panic, including hocus, and need to be protected from themselves, and must be told what/how to invest, from the expert who has only a one asset class portfolio.

3) Future returns 'could' be less, so we will 're-write' history and n'investor pschology ' to reflect that, and rather than simply suggest that more conservative folks be more conservative in their portfolio asset management, we will protect them from themselves.

4) If you 'wish' for something bad enough, it will occur (ie, data magically being 'found', and 4% withdrawal will work on 'all cash' CD portfolio.

5) If you post 60 times a day, maybe you will drive the forum moderator and all critics away, and you can take over the Retire Early Board to form the hoci fan club.






Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
hocus writes:

I understand why there are few able to take this step, and expect to do some things before resumption of the debate to bring some useful synopsis to those who have not had the time to read all the posts. Andrew61 posted an idea the other day that I believe holds some promise. He said that, while he could not make out my argument given the confusing atmostphere in which it has been presented, he believes that if someone could meet with hocus for some time outside of this board that he or she would learn some "important" things about the safe withdrawal rare concept.

I'm thinking of sending Andrew61 an e-mail before the debate resumes in which I will offer to meet with him for just that purpose. I will purchase a ticket to Chicago, reserve a hotel room for a few nights, and spend any time available to Andrew going over the concept of safe withdrawal rates until every question in his mind about what I am saying has been answered. Perhaps he will be able to serve as a go-between, allowing the board to hear the ideas from a screenname that has not been dragged through the mud for three-plus months.



It sounds like you're urging me to "work". <grin>

I had made the suggestion of a one-on-one meeting with you to hear your ideas, unimpeded by "board noise", as a hypothetical. I never thought you'd actually consider taking me up on it.

Still, if you're serious, feel free to e-mail me whenever you're ready to pursue this. I probably wouldn't be averse to meeting with you in person for further discussion.

As to serving as a "go-between", that would be much more of a commitment on my part, and I can't promise anything at this point except that I'll think it over. Of course, for me to ever agree to take on that role, I would have to be absolutely convinced from our in-person meetings that your ideas have genuine merit.

I'm not totally convinced of that at this point -- I feel like I'm missing some important pieces of the puzzle, which I'm hoping you can provide.

At this point, I can't entirely disagree with those who see a lot of confusion on your part, particularly involving aspects of the SWR study (yeah, I know, you don't want to discuss that study at all). You do seem to misinterpret much of what the study says, but to be fair, I've caught intercst (and others) misrepresenting some of your points more than once, as well. I can't say they're doing this deliberately; perhaps they're just not reading your posts carefully enough.

I just have a gut feeling that the person who composed such essays as "The New Luxuries" simply cannot be "loony", as some have characterized you. It's just not possible.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 3
Please p-box me.

I'll consider it a great big raspberry, if that makes you fell better. <grin>

intercst


Trust me, intercst, you've received plenty of raspberries on this end. So much so I have to keep a bottle of glass cleaner and roll of paper towels by the computer to wipe off the screen from time to time. <insert intercst type grin here that simply indicates an intended zinger> I know of no one that I tend to raspberry more than you, other than perhaps Galeno. I'm sure this surprises very few. However, from time to time you actually post something worthwhile, thought admitedly it is less and less frequent now. Come to think of it, I can't really remember when the last time was you posted something constructive, but then again that pretty much goes for the board as a whole, with few exceptions, including myself.

I do find it interesting why you want so badly for me to p-box you. Could it be that it is you and not hocus that desires only the fan club at your side, ardent admirers who view you as a (cough) leader (cough), someone to blindly follow? Admitedly, that has never been my role. I have always perceived your weaknesses as well as admired your strengths.

I find the p-box tool increadibly inefficient. Too many people tend to repost those I've p-boxed, the number of which totals 3 from all the boards I frequent. I concur with GWM that it has been horribly ineficient on the recent hocus war threads.

InParadise,
going back and taking the time to edit out the most insulting knee jerk reaction part of my post, and thinking this board would be one heck of a lot better off if everyone used the same editing technique.
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
I would have to be absolutely convinced from our in-person meetings that your ideas have genuine merit. I'm not totally convinced of that at this point -- I feel like I'm missing some important pieces of the puzzle, which I'm hoping you can provide.

Thanks for saying this, Andrew. I thought I was the only one who wasn't putting two and two together about SWR.


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
So much so I have to keep a bottle of glass cleaner and roll of paper towels by the computer to wipe off the screen from time to time.

Fun-neeee, InParadise! I can just picture you sitting in your "little hut" (just kidding; I'm sure it's a splendid abode) with palm trees swaying in the breeze, just phfffthhh'ing away! Here's a site to get the actual sound (among others) to install on your 'puter:

http://www.a1freesoundeffects.com/
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
No FoolMeOnce, there is no exit from this board. We are all stuck here like in Satre's play, "No Exit".

JG
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
Here's the URL, in particular, for "raspberry fart" and "scream shut up."

http://www.a1freesoundeffects.com/people.html
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
the hocus philosophy is summed up in 5 sentences

1) No one can 'predict' the future, and the past always needs to be 'interpreted' and 'opinions' formed about 'what really happened', so we can be more 'predicitve' about the future.

2) People panic, including hocus, and need to be protected from themselves, and must be told what/how to invest, from the expert who has only a one asset class portfolio.

3) Future returns 'could' be less, so we will 're-write' history and n'investor pschology ' to reflect that, and rather than simply suggest that more conservative folks be more conservative in their portfolio asset management, we will protect them from themselves.

4) If you 'wish' for something bad enough, it will occur (ie, data magically being 'found', and 4% withdrawal will work on 'all cash' CD portfolio.

5) If you post 60 times a day, maybe you will drive the forum moderator and all critics away, and you can take over the Retire Early Board to form the hoci fan club.
....


I wish that I could use all my daily rec's on this post.

Well done.

Regards,

Keith Jones


Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
telegraph: the hocus philosophy is summed up in 5 sentences
---------
You have no recommendations left for today. (explain this)


Take this as a virtual rec.

Hyperborea
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 0
<<<I would have to be absolutely convinced from our in-person meetings that your ideas have genuine merit. I'm not totally convinced of that at this point -- I feel like I'm missing some important pieces of the puzzle, which I'm hoping you can provide.>>>

Thanks for saying this, Andrew. I thought I was the only one who wasn't putting two and two together about SWR.



Catherine, I wasn't referring to the SWR study in the above bolded phrase. I understand that pretty well.

I was referring to hocus' position that he has been trying to convey these past few months. I feel I partly "get it", but that there are key pieces missing.




Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 2
Well, FMO, I hope you reconsider.
If those who offer real substance leave, then the board will truly suffer.
Your perspective on FIRE and investing is rather unique here.
I appreciate very much your willingness to share your knowledge and information about Real Estate investing. Because of your efforts I am MUCH more able to make informed decisions for myself about Real Estate investing.

Ralph
Print the post Back To Top
No. of Recommendations: 1
Sorry, you can only recommend a post to the Best of once.

http://www.topica.com/create/index2.html

That's all it takes, Hocus... Give it a shot.

<snip>

That's quite a claim, Hocus. Has the student become the master?

Initially, everytime Intercst interjects in your threads, it's to correct an assumption or extrapolation on your part that simply has no basis in fact. Then, you get upset with him and tell all what a horrible disruption he's being. I think he's being quite generous in taking the time to supply facts.

You've supplied no useful facts so far. What you've possibly managed to do is to encourage someone who's FIRE'd, who might have "stayed the course" with the Intercst SWR plan, to begin tinkering with timing the market, thus possibly ruining their financial status. You've offered no alternative other than "the SWR may be lower" and "some people may not stick to the plan when the market's down"... No kidding?!?

It's pretty simple really. The past suggests that the SWR for a 30 year payout period is roughly 4% with the proper
mix of stocks to cash/bonds. Each of us must evaluate our own risk tolerance (in this case, I would call it "volatility
tolerance") and our potential to "stick to the plan" through a market like the one we're experiencing. After making that
judgement on ourselves (we are the only ones capable of making that judgement on ourselves, btw) we can adjust the
SWR to a lower rate and toy with the mix of stocks to cash/bonds (still using Intercst's spreadsheet) until we have a
better comfort level.

Of course, this WILL delay retirement, because you will need much more money for a 2.3475692340123%
withdrawal rate and a 30.35732% stocks/69.64268 cash/bonds portfolio (check the math) than for a 4% withdrawal
rate, but that is the price each individual must make for their own piece of mind.

How much more is there to discuss really?

Draggon
Print the post Back To Top