NoFeeBoards.com!

Hi John! I read an early release too. I thought it was OK, but certainly no blockbuster. It was tough to get through for me as it was very wordy. There are some good points, but one thing I have a problem with is exactly how a middle class family making the median income is going to be able to save ...

Ah yes BB - you done good - whereas my RE has been only so-so or just ok.. Yep, right place at the right time, very unusual for me. :lol: And you've made up the difference with dividend stocks (and REIT), not a bad plan either imho. Problem with RE now, hard to find deals that will cash flow, excep...

In fairness to JWR, his example was a "TIPS Ladder Example". It wouldn't make much sense to have em debt or junk bonds, since they are not TIPS Makes sense, also consistent with his use of non-real estate exclusively us based stocks as his equity portion of his example portfolios . That is, no one ...

Hi Ataloss! so why would you hold tips and exclude em debt, junk bonds etc as in jwr's example In fairness to JWR, his example was a "TIPS Ladder Example". It wouldn't make much sense to have em debt or junk bonds, since they are not TIPS. :D(maybe they could be included in the other 60-80%???) Bea...

Hi Ataloss! so why would you hold tips and exclude em debt, junk bonds etc as in jwr's example In fairness to JWR, his example was a "TIPS Ladder Example". It wouldn't make much sense to have em debt or junk bonds, since they are not TIPS. :D(maybe they could be included in the other 60-80%???) Beac...

unclemick wrote:

Heck! With something as 'lazy' as Target - you have time to go off and do Real Estate on the side.

OK, Unclemick, NOW you convinced me!

BB

Hi John! As far as would anyone invest 80% in something that they think will drop 40 to 70% at some point in the next 10 years, I think the answer is a pretty easy no . In fact if you read the original post in this thread, JWR was discussing a 40% TIPS allocation as an alternative to Petey's 20% sce...

Hi Unclemick!

I can't believe you didn't mention a real estate allocation!
That's all you need to make this work.

BB

Hi John! In the original example, the TIPS Ladder lasted 10 years. Each year, 10% of the ladder would mature (ignoring details related to inflation and interest and reinvestment). This means that you could use up to 10% of your original TIPS allocation for other uses if necessary. (This matures at p...

Hi John! Thanks for the 50 year numbers and so quick too! I feel a little guilty about hangin' out on the beach, while you were doing all the work. 8)I guess I'll have to buy you a beer some time. :D I also liked the 40%/60% scenario. It makes me wonder about a 20% TIPS ladder, 60% equities and 20% ...

Hi John!
That's a great example. I'm going to have to spend some time reviewing it. One question, though, how would this example change (or could you do another one) for a 50 year payout. Since I'm only 38, I hopefully have at least that long .

Beachbumz

MacDuff wrote:

th wrote: The only problem is the troll is also macduff.

This is rich! First of all, I am not Hocus. Second, if I were, how could Hocus troll his own board?

mac

Now's the time to come clean MacHocus! In a few minutes it will be too late!

Beachbumz

Not Enough Censorship There is one area in which Hocus and I disagree. I favor censorship on discussion boards. Hocus is willing to tolerate almost anything. I prefer heavy censorship. In spite of what you have read, Hocus has removed only one or two posts from this board. He has relocated a few po...

Hi Norbert!

Be careful man, that's dangerously close to "nonsense gibberish". It might get your post deleted.

Beachbumz

Thank you Norbert. I hope to see you at the other boards.

Beachbumz

Hi DUMB HOCUS! Once again you have proved how ridiculous you REALLY are. The only nonsense GIBBERISH ever posted to this board has been by YOU. The only word games ever played has been by YOU. The only definition changes have benn by YOU. That's why no reasonable person ever agrees with you...becaus...

Are you saying that the 4% rate was NOT always safe when back tested in the PAST. The 4 percent number was not always safe in earlier periods, BeachBumz. It always SURVIVED in earlier periods. That's something different. How can you say this is something different, Hocus? If the 4% ALWAYS survived ...

I see it as my job as moderator here to figure out how to drop the Dumb Ben in the river so that the Smart Ben gets to come out and play with us more. I assume this is your opinion of Ben, so I also assume that it would be OK on this board to refer to the "DUMB HOCUS" when I (we) believe this to be...

My two cents. Of course Ben and Intercst and Raddr are shooting straight. The central difficulty arises from the appearance that circa 2000 the historical trend channel was broken to the upside(in the U.S.). Add in the current low interest rate and things get chewy. The insights provided by SWR rea...

The 4 percent number was not always safe in earlier periods, BeachBumz. It always SURVIVED in earlier periods. That's something different. I think this is a key point in some misunderstandings of your posts hocus. I read safe/survived as the same thing - you do not. We don't have to agree. Cheers! ...