FMO Gets Hocomania!

Research on Safe Withdrawal Rates

Moderator: hocus2004

hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

FMO Gets Hocomania!

Post by hocus2004 »

Here's a thread from the Motley Fool board titled "FMO Joins Hocomania."

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid= ... e#21647125

This thread points to a thread from the "FIRE Wannabees" board in which FoolMeOnce (who posts at some boards as "FMO") is so bold as to raise questions re whether the withdrawal rates identified in the REHP study as "100 percent safe" really are quite as safe as advertised. He concludes that they are not.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid= ... e#21645912

There is no pussyfooting in these posts by FMO. None of this, "Well, gee, it's true that there isn't one informed analyst on the face of Planet Earth who has looked at the historical data in recent years and who has come up with conclusions re the SWR anything even remotely in the ballpark of the ones that intercst came up with, but, gee, to know what is safe you need to form some sort of assessment of what is going to happen in the future and the future is unknown, so who am I to say whether it is dangerous or not to engage in deliberate deception as to what the data says, it is all so difficult for my little brain to figure out." None of that mealy-mouthed jizz-jazz for FMO, who long-time followers of The Great SWR Debate will recall has distinguished himself as a Hero on a number of earlier occasions as well. FMO tells it like it is in the posts set forth at the thread linked above. If you care about seeing your Retire Early dreams survive, please read his words and please think over carefully what he is saying. FMO is telling it straight, no chaser, and when you are seeking advice on what to do with your life savings, it is straight talk that you need to hear.

FMO Hero Quote #1: "The problem with this, intercst's and other similar studies, is that they are merely mathematical constructs. They project survivability based on the retiree holding on through thick and thin. In fact they assume the retiree holds onto their equities through the worst circumstance ever encountered. Problem is, no one has ever actually done this. (or likely ever will) "

FMO Hero Quote #2: "Every study of real world investor returns that I have seen, shows that most investors dramatically underperform the equities markets. Remember that studies such as intercst's and others do not allow for such underperformance."

FMO Hero Quote #3: "bear markets are not created by rtetirees who stoically hold on to their shares through thick and thin as they watch the savings of a lifetime evaporate."

FMO Hero Quote #4: "remember that such studies treat any portfolio which merely "survives" as being successful. Think about what this means. It means that a portfolio (and in fact the entire safe withdrawal methodology) is successful if it declines 50%, 75%, 90% or even 99.44%, if it subsequently recovers. Question is . . . will it have a chance? It would be a rare person indeed who can can stick with a methodology that periodically exposes the savings of a lifetime (upon which he depends for his very survival) to such erosion. IMO it is unreasonable to make such as assumption. I don't know amyone who could do this. I know I couldn't. But when you accept the results of such studies, by definition, you are agreeing to such an assumption. It's nonsense."

FMO Hero Quote #5: "It would be an interesting exercise to modify intercst's study to allow the input of threshhold values for abandoning the approach. If folks would honestly assess (if that is possible) the point at which the price is too high for adhering to the methodology, the resulting "true" (as opposed to theoretical) failure rate would be very illuminating. "

FMO Hero Quote #6: "I would question the sanity of anyone so hidebound to such an approach that they could stick to it after seeing the majority of their life savings evaporate, while facing the prospect of taking another inflation-adjusted withdrawal to fund living expenses.If you think you could do this after seeing the value of your portfolio drop by 50-99% you are only fooling yourself in my opinion."

FMO Hero Quote #7: "It is not my study and it is not me that is making representations about it's validity. I simply made a statement of fact. I will allow that I don't know all investors, that not all the ones that I know have shared their investment philosophies with me and that I have done no extensive studies. However, that does not change the fact that I am not aware of a single individual who has successfully applied the strategy we discuss to fund retirement through the worst that the market has been demonstrated to deliver."

FMO Hero Quote #8: "Since I am basing my statements on the historical record the SWR study says your money would have been safe. I disagree because I believe the study to be theoretically accurate only if you buy its inherent assumptions regarding investor behavior. I don't.

Please don't tell me that I quoted too many of FMO's words. We have experienced an unrelenting deluge of nonsense gibberish for 30 months now. These are the words of someone speaking sense, standing up to a a ruthless and deceptive and irresponsible power and telling it like it is all the same. For an Information Seeker to come across these words at one of the FIRE/Passion Saving/Retire Early board in November 2004 is like coming across cool spring water after a long trek through desert sands. We need to drink in these words, so many of them so fast that they spill from our mouths and offer their cooling, healing power everywhere they fall.

FMO gets it. It's not about word games. It's not a contest as to who is more skilled at pretzel logic. These boards were formed to help people to achieve financial freedom early in life. You don't help people get to financial freedom early in life by misrepresenting what the historical data says. If you have reached a point in your posting career at which it is no longer possible for you to tell it straight, it is time to hang up the old screen-name and find some other activity to fill up the empty hours of your remaining days. We need a whole bunch fewer DCMs on these boards and a whole bunch more FMOs. That's the ticket for bringing these boards back to life.

Perhaps those FMO posts are God's little thanksgiving gift to the Retire Early community, if I may be so bold as to advance the suggestion.

If you happen to read these words, please feel warmly welcomed to post at this board at any time you please about real estate or any other investing-related topic you please, FMO. Courage matters.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

Looks like FMO needs to have his head taken out from where the sun don't shine, have his eyes washed out and sent back to school. Starting with Ben Graham and Bogle.

50-60% drops in stock portfolio values is ho hum Mr Market stuff. The big 80-90% once in a generation drops are where true grit shows up.

Balanced index, watching dividend streams, and duration for your fixed part. The classic defenses are the classic defenses. Anybody watch the Pats last night - good balance may not be pretty or glamorous - but the ho humm basics need to be mastered.

Rant,rant, rant - I know but I still feel to many are watching the wrong end of the stick.

Take a look at 'your portfolio's SEC yield' and then consider your age and the lessons of history(aka valuation measures).
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

Twist my arm and you can throw in slice and dice - provided you have discipline and watch the yield/valuation measures/expenses.

I'm still a little sceptical of the durability of long term expected returns.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

FMO Hero Quote #4: "remember that such studies treat any portfolio which merely "survives" as being successful. Think about what this means. It means that a portfolio (and in fact the entire safe withdrawal methodology) is successful if it declines 50%, 75%, 90% or even 99.44%, if it subsequently recovers. Question is . . . will it have a chance? It would be a rare person indeed who can can stick with a methodology that periodically exposes the savings of a lifetime (upon which he depends for his very survival) to such erosion. IMO it is unreasonable to make such as assumption. I don't know anyone who could do this. I know I couldn't. But when you accept the results of such studies, by definition, you are agreeing to such an assumption. It's nonsense."

FMO Hero Quote #5: "It would be an interesting exercise to modify intercst's study to allow the input of threshold values for abandoning the approach. If folks would honestly assess (if that is possible) the point at which the price is too high for adhering to the methodology, the resulting "true" (as opposed to theoretical) failure rate would be very illuminating. "
We have done some studies along these lines with our new, modified calculators with their improved data reduction capabilities. For example, we can set a floor below which a portfolio is not allowed to drop.

See these studies:
A Survey using Minimum Balances dated Wed Jul 28, 2004.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2826

A Second Survey using Minimum Balances dated Sun Aug 01, 2004.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2840

I have limited my data analysis so far to the easiest kinds to collect: put in two or three withdrawal rates and see what would have happened and/or determine the highest withdrawal rates that would have survived 100%, 90% and 80% in the past.

It is more difficult to collect a set of data with the highest surviving withdrawal rates for each individual year.

It is much, much more difficult to collect data not only showing the highest surviving withdrawal rates for individual years but also showing how the portfolio balances changed versus time (and/or how the 4 or 5-year moving averages of the amounts withdrawn varied).

We can do quite a bit along the lines of what FoolMeOnce would like to see. However, I need to know specific questions in order to produce the desired information.

Have fun.

John R.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

Defense,defense,defense

I sense fear in FMO's quote's - given where valuation levels are currently.

I remember running a what if 73-74 repeated on a Vanguard calulator with my portfolio - I think -22% was the number taking out 4%. This was back in the mid 90's before the bubble run up. My Lifestrategy mod was down -16/17 % for one quarter during the modest 2002 downturn so I was extremely happy.

Given the large number of data runs here: TIP's, dividend strategy's, changing stock weighting in a balanced index based on valuation - I'm sure some defensive formations/moves could be summarized.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"We can do quite a bit along the lines of what FoolMeOnce would like to see. However, I need to know specific questions in order to produce the desired information. "

When I am trying to put forward a simple explanation of the valuation issue, I ask people to ask themselves whether it seems possible that the SWR that applied in 1980 could be the same as the SWR that applied in 2000. Most reasonable people acknowledge that that is not possible. If the 4 percent number was right for the valuations that applied in 1980, then the SWR had to be something lower than 4 percent in 2000. If the 4 percent number was right for the valuations that applied in 2000, then the SWR had to be something higher than that in 1980.

The same sort of mental exercise can be used to bring home the critiicism of the conventional methodology that FMO is putting forward, a criticism that is not rooted primarily in concerns re valuations. If the SWR is 4 percent for someone with a 90 percent stock allocation, then it can't be 4 percent for someone with a 60 percent stock allocation, can it? And whatever the SWR is for someone with a 60 percent stock allocation, the same number can't apply for someone with a 30 percent stock allocation, can it?

SWR analysis is risk analysis. One of the biggest risks inherent in stock ownership is the risk of investing too heavily in this highly volatile asset class and thereby being forced to sell at the wrong time, when prices are low. This risk is greater for those with high stock allocations than it is for those with moderate or low stock allocations. The conventional methodology does not take this factor into consideration. It defies common sense to believe that that is the right answer. There has to be SOME effect, does there not?

In an ideal world, we would be working from data showing how individual investors with various stock allocations fared in the past. This isn't an ideal world, and we don't have the data that we need to really do this right. I don't see that as an excuse for throwing our hands into the air and going along with the terribly flawed conventional methodology approach. We know with absolute certainty that assuming no change in the SWR for different levels of stock investment isn't right. Why be satisfied with a methodology that assumes things we know cannot possibly be right?

I think that we need to look at what data exists that bears on the question and try to come up with the most reasonable assumption we can as to how much the ownership of higher percentages of stocks affects the SWR in various sorts of circumstances. Then we could make adjustments to the core numbers that we came up with in our earlier investigations.

When we say that the SWR for an 80 percent stock allocation is about 2.5 percent at today's valuation levels, we are reporting accurately what the data tells us for the factors we examined. But we did not examine the factor of stock sales that result from placing excessive reliance on this particular asset class. The reality is that those with 80 percent stock allocations face greater risks of selling at the wrong time than those with 50 percent allocations, so the adjustment downward in the SWR for this factor should be greater for the 80-percent group than it would be for the 50-percent group. That's reality, and I think that SWR analysis should be reality-based as well as data-based.

This gets tricky, though. Not all investors with a 50 percent allocation face the same risk of selling shares at the wrong time because of the fears experienced with big price drops. Those with lots of slack in their plans can reasonably expect not to feel all that much pressure to sell. Those who saved barely enough to finance their spending expectations cannot. So there need to be adjustments to reflect the different circumstances of different types of investors.

Reality is sometimes a bit complicated. I don't think that justifies ignoring the realities and reporting as "100 percent safe" withdrawal rates that reality says are nothing of the kind. The more realities that are taken into account in an SWR analysis, the more valuable the tool becomes. For those who don't like to take this sort of factor into account, the adjustment for higher risk associated with high-stock-percentage portfolios can be reported as an add-on to a core study. This sort of information could be a significant help to those trying to put together the most realistic Retire Early plan possible, in my view.

Ignoring key factors diminishes the value of the tool. One of the things that you want to be able to do with SWR analysis is to compare alternative asset classes. How can you do this when you ignore one of the key risk factors for one of the asset classes? If someone put out a study of the SWR for TIPS in which they said that they are going to assume that TIPS will produce all of the capital gains of stocks, they would be laughed out of the house. One of the downsides of purchasing TIPS is that you linmit your upside potential. But we ignore one of the key downsides of stocks, that the volatility of the asset class causes middle-class investors to be enticed to buy when prices are high and to sell when prices are low. It is not surprising that, when you skew the results in this way, you come up with some eye-poppingly high SWRs for stocks, given their high growth potential (which you would intuitively expect to cause low SWRs). The question is, Are those eye-popping results something you can count on after you retire or are they just something you concocted to make yourself feel good about investing heavily in an asset class that the historical data indicates cannot support a safe retirement for someone with the amount of accumulated assets you possess today?
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

Here is an example of what we can do. It is from my first reference. In every case, the traditionally reported Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rate (HSWR) was 3.9%. But notice how much different the answers were when the investor insists upon keeping his balance at least as high as 50% of his starting balance (after adjusting for inflation).

If you focus on the safest conditions (with no failures or 10% failures), the 50% stock allocation is vastly superior to an 80% stock allocation. OTOH, if you look at the median results (with 50% failures), the 80% stock allocation is better. It has a higher upside potential. But are you going to stick with an 80% stock allocation after your portfolio balance has fallen below one half?

The data do not tell us the answer. They inform us about what is likely to happen. It is for us as individuals to draw our own conclusions about what we would do.

From A Survey using Minimum Balances dated Wed Jul 28, 2004.
http://nofeeboards.com/boards/viewtopic.php?t=2826
JWR1945 wrote:..
I set the initial balance equal to $100000. I set the minimum balance threshold at $50000. I chose to use inflation adjusted (real) dollars. I selected start years 1921 through 1980. I set expenses equal to 0.20%.

I looked at a variety of portfolios.

I varied withdrawal rates as a percentage of the initial balance with adjustments to match inflation. I have focused on 30-year portfolio lifetimes.
..
In the results that follow, failure means that a portfolio's balance fell below its threshold (of 50% of its initial balance in real dollars) within 30 years.

Conventional Portfolios

I looked at HDBR50 first. It consists of 50% stocks and 50% commercial paper. Its traditional Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rate (HSWR or Historical Database Rate) is 3.9% (or, more precisely, 3.91%). The portfolio would have fallen below 50% of its initial balance (in real dollars) at the levels indicated. It would have fallen below threshold in at least one more sequence at a withdrawal rate 0.1% higher than what is listed.

No failures: 2.8%.
Six failures (10%): 3.5%.
Twelve failures (20%): 3.7%.
Thirty failures (50%): 4.6%.

The first failure was with start year 1937. At a withdrawal rate of 3.6%, the (six) failures occurred with start years 1936, 1937, 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969.

I looked at HDBR80. It consists of 80% stocks and 20% commercial paper. Its traditional Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rate (HSWR or Historical Database Rate) is 3.9% (or, more precisely, 3.95%). The portfolio would have fallen to below 50% of its initial balance (in real dollars) at the levels indicated. It would have fallen below threshold in at least one more sequence at a withdrawal rate 0.1% higher than what is listed.

No failures: 2.4%.
Six failures (10%): 3.1%.
Twelve failures (20%): 3.6%.
Thirty failures (50%): 5.5%.

The first failure was with start year 1966. At a withdrawal rate of 3.2%, the (six) failures occurred with start years 1965-1969 and 1973.

I looked at HDBR50T2. It consists of 50% stocks and 50% TIPS at a 2% (real) interest rate. Its traditional Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rate (HSWR or Historical Database Rate) is 3.9%. The portfolio would have fallen to below 50% of its initial balance (in real dollars) at the levels indicated. It would have fallen below threshold in at least one more sequence at a withdrawal rate 0.1% higher than what is listed.

No failures: 3.3%.
Six failures (10%): 3.6%.
Twelve failures (20%): 3.9%.
Thirty failures (50%): 5.0%.

The first failure was with start year 1966. At a withdrawal rate of 3.7%, the failures occurred with start years 1962, 1964, 1965, 1966, 1968 and 1969.

I looked at HDBR80T2. It consists of 80% stocks and 20% TIPS at a 2% (real) interest rate. Its traditional Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rate (HSWR or Historical Database Rate) is 3.9%. The portfolio would have fallen to below 50% of its initial balance (in real dollars) at the levels indicated. It would have fallen below threshold in at least one more sequence at a withdrawal rate 0.1% higher than what is listed.

No failures: 2.5%.
Six failures (10%): 3.2%.
Twelve failures (20%): 3.8%.
Thirty failures (50%): 5.6%.

The first failure was with start year 1966. At a withdrawal rate of 3.3%, the (seven) failures occurred with start years 1964-1969 and 1973.
Why did I choose to use 50% of the initial balance instead of something else? hocus2004 was interested in that percentage and nobody else spoke up. There is a lot that we can do along these lines.

Have fun.

John R.

P.S. These are Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rates, not Safe Withdrawal Rates. This kind of analysis can be extended to include confidence limits, which would let us know what the Safe Withdrawal Rates are. It takes more effort, but not too much.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

At the nexus of fear/greed/math - hopefully the math would provide a data set to point out options.

Memory says that after the 73 -74 debacle, stock mutual funds were in net redemption for a number of years. I just took Dreman's 1982 book back to the library - in which Dreman argued strongly in favor of stocks at then current valuations - sort of like Ben Graham in the forties.

Just guessing but I think my panic point for a 50/50 stockbond portfolio might be before 50% - say in the 25-50% range, I would be exploring options. Hopefully with enough courage to load up on stocks up to a Grahamesque 75% if valuations became favorible.

Until that happens - my favorite move is to due nothing( balanced index) and add to dividend stocks with any 'found money'.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"The data do not tell us the answer. They inform us about what is likely to happen. It is for us as individuals to draw our own conclusions about what we would do. "

I don't think too much about the idea of investors drawing their own conclusions as to what they would do without first checking into what the historical data says is likely. Investing is an emotional experience and there are few investors who are entirely beyond the reach of the influence of their emotions. I remember in the early days of the Great Debate, we would have posters at the Motley Fool screaming at the top of their lungs "I am not emotional! Not at all!! Not even a little bit!!! I am an INTJ!!! I will kill you if you ever again suggest that I am capable of experiencing an emotion!!!!" and their faces would turn red and stuff. I was something less than persuaded by some of these claims.

If I knew that 90 percent of investors of the past who went with my stock percentage were able to hold for the long term, I would feel good about my chances. If I knew that 90 percent of the investors of the past who went with my stock percentage were not able to hold for the long term, I would not feel so good about my chances.

I like to use the historical data to inform my investment decisions, and I don't see why this aspect of the question is so different from a number of other aspects where large numbers seem perfectly happy to take into account what the historical data says. The one big problem we have on this aspect is that we don't have access to the data that would answer the question precisely. Still, I think that it is better to make use of what data we do possess to come up with the best guesses we are capable of coming up with than to make the silly assumption made in the conventional methodology studies, that no investor with a 74 percent S&P allocation will sell a single share, even if stock prices fall by 89 percent (I believe that is the largest percentage drop in the historical record).

Bernstein reports in "The Three Pillars of Investing" that if we fall to the price levels we have seen at two earlier times, we will be at DOW 1600. And the REHP study says that it is "100 percent safe" to presume that not a single investor with a 74 percent allocation will sell even a single share if this comes to pass? I don't but it. I agree with FoolMeOnce that this assumption is "nonsense." The only change I would make in what he says is to add the word "gibberish" on at the end to really bring the point home.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

Along those lines - the popular questionaires to determine what kind of investor you are - ?????

Heh,heh - I can tell you what I think my panic point is today - but if push comes to shove - will I calmly run a data set and pick my options?

Well - will I???
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"Heh,heh - I can tell you what I think my panic point is today - but if push comes to shove - will I calmly run a data set and pick my options? Well - will I???"

It may be that this was intended as a rhetorical question. But on the chance that it was not, I will give it a shot.

It's the quality of the decisions you make today that will determine your emotional state when bad times come. One of the points that FoolMeOnce makes is that those who rely on the REHP study for guidance on SWRs are only "fooling themselves." I think that comment is right on.

If intercst put up a study on his web site setting forth his reasons why he personally believes that a 4 percent withdrawal is safe, I would have no objection to that. If he identifies the thing as his personal opinion, then his readers know what they are getting into. He didn't do that. He says that the historical data supports this opinion of his. That's crossing an important line. When you cite historical data in support of your views, you are claiming to speak in the name of science. When you do that, you incur an obligation to be bound by the disciplines of the scientific method. This intercst has not done.

JWR1945 has on a number of occasions made the point that many early retirees make good decisions just emplying their own common sense. I think that is to a large extent so. However, I also think that the REHP study has had an influence on a good number of people who visit the various boards seeking insights on how to win financial freedom early in life. To the extent that that is so, I think that we have set ourselves up for a whole heap of bad feeling in the event that stocks perform in the future anything at all in the way you would expect to see them perform by taking an informed look at stock-return data from the past.

Some early retirees will get through any bad times to come just fine. Some will have set things up in advance so that they will be able to profit from bad times (by increasing their stock allocations when prices are more reasonable). That's even better. It is my expectation that some others are going to do not so well. Those who have relied on the REHP study as a guide to formation of their Retire Early investment strategies have exposed themselves to a lot of unnecessary risk.

It is simply not so that anyone who goes with a stock allocation of less than 74 percent is "loony" or "irrational" or "mentally ill." Those who argue that there is no rational basis on which to consider alternative asset classes do our community a disservice. Such posters make not only themselves look uninformed. They make us all look uninformed when a good number of the rest of us fail to speak up about the nonsense gibberish they inflict on us. We deal with money questions at these boards, so there is a need for us to be a little bit sober in what we say. The REHP study is not a sober study, in my view, and the author of the study is not a sober poster. People who come to these boards seeking accurate information need to be so informed. It's part of the job of the board community to so inform them.

The bottom line is that some are going to panic in bad times and do just the wrong thing at just the wrong time. The purpose of risk-assessment studies should be to steer people away from risk, not to steer them towards it. I don't think that we have done such a hot job of that in the early years of this movement. Things are improving, but we still have a long way to go. We need to talk straight. We need to let people know that those who speak most dogmatically are often the ones who have the least advanced understanding of the issues being talked about.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

hocus2004 wrote:Some early retirees will get through any bad times to come just fine. Some will have set things up in advance so that they will be able to profit from bad times (by increasing their stock allocations when prices are more reasonable). That's even better. It is my expectation that some others are going to do not so well. Those who have relied on the REHP study as a guide to formation of their Retire Early investment strategies have exposed themselves to a lot of unnecessary risk.
Fortunately, thanks to your own efforts along with the aid of our research (which was blocked to the maximum extent possible), this percentage is decreasing. Most people no longer accept the REHP study's claims of 100% safety. Many will not face up to the issue directly but will use words such as rule of thumb. The damage is not eliminated, but it is reduced.

Have fun.

John R.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"Most people no longer accept the REHP study's claims of 100% safety. Many will not face up to the issue directly but will use words such as rule of thumb."

That's so. I sometimes wonder if there will come a day when we will have achieved enough Normalization that Hocomania itself will become a thing of the past. Nothing like that could ever really happen, could it?
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

Hocomania? Normalization? Boglehead?

Heh,heh - the Norwegian widow?

I'm old enough to remember when multiply by 16 was the rule of thumb, then 18, and so on.

To paraphase John Maynard Keynes and to a lessor extent, Eugene Weber: looking to history is importatnt: PROVIDED YOU UNDERSTAND THE BROAD REASONS WHY HISTORY WAS WHAT IS WAS. I.e - history never repeats exactly but like a river sometimes bends back on itself.

Value has suffered some attempts at changing definitions periodically - but IMHO, it has never gone out of style.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

I sometimes wonder if there will come a day when we will have achieved enough Normalization that Hocomania itself will become a thing of the past. Nothing like that could ever really happen, could it?
Possibly not. It could be the cost of fame.

If you think about any famous financial writer, people on discussion boards tend to come down for or against. You have enough fame already for people to divide into groups. Your published writings will cause this to continue: both the fame and the divisions.

There is another crowd that I do not understand at all which is likely to remain with us well into the future. Those are the people who brag about their own ignorance. They proudly proclaim that have not looked into a matter but they have strong opinions anyway and they insist on telling us all about them.

Have fun.

John R.
unclemick
*** Veteran
Posts: 231
Joined: Sat Jun 12, 2004 4:00 am
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

Post by unclemick »

Bogle has a copy of the old ad declaring his first index fund 'UnAmerican' - put out by Fidelity of course.

Strong opinion?? - heh,heh,heh,heh.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

If there is something that I could do to get FoolMeOnce posting at this site again, I sure wish he would tell me what it is. We all would benefit from having regular access to this guy's insights.

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

FoolMeOnce: "Years ago, I had a very fine tenant in one of my properties. Mr. "M"￾ was an elderly gentleman and a pleasure to know....The day came, as it usually does, when Mr. M informed me that he would be moving....It seems that he was hit quite badly in the stock market "crash"￾ and felt that he no longer had the resources to remain comfortably independent.... I made a mental note to myself. How in the world could anyone be so foolish as to entrust a substantial portion of their life's savings to such a volatile and capricious investment? ....Mr. M fooled himself and paid the price. Many more are fooling themselves today as they underestimate the risks contained in the equities markets. ...On occasion I remember Mr. M fondly, for he was a good man. I hope he is doing well."
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

FoolMeOnce responded to my post above in a post he put to the Motley Fool board.

FoolMeOnce: "I quit posting on that site as a direct result of hocus being allowed back in by El Supremo. So obviously, yes, there is something Hocus could do . . . . leave and stay gone."

Both Wanderer and FoolMeOnce have recently responded to questions that I have asked of them at this board with responses posted to other boards. This is odd behavior. Wanderer should have responded here and FoolMeOnce should have responded here. That was the obviously right thing to do. Why didn't they?

They didn't because they know that if they respond here, I will also respond in the obviously right way. If Wanderer responded here sayiing that he is too "busy" to help the community resolve the frictions that it experineced largely as a result of his abusive posting in defense of the conventional methodology, I would respond by saying that, given the damage he has done to the community, he is under an obligation to do what he can to resolve the frictions. If FoolMeOnce responded by saying that he will not post at this site because I post at this site, I would ask him what it is about my posting that is troublesome to him.

The answer to that question is that he finds it troublesome that I post in an honest and informed way on both the substance and process side of the SWR question. FMO once said that he could not in good conscience continue to post at the Motley Fool board. He said this when threats of physical violence were made against anyone who posted honestly on SWRs. Today, FMO posts there. Why has he changed his mind?

I believe that he changed his mind because he wants to be able to post on a board that has a large enough community that he can obtain a good amount of feedback to his posts. I want that too. So do most other community members. That is why many continue to post at the Motley Fool board despite their displeasure at intercst's dishonest and absusive posting tactics. All of us who built the Motley Fool board (FoolMeOnce, Wanderer, and hocus all played a big role) have a right to use that board to discuss early retirement and we all have a right to be protected by the Motley Fool site administrators from intercst's abusive and dishonest posting practices.

Me and Wanderer and FoolMeOnce should all be on the same side. There was a time when we all WERE on the same side. Both FoolMeOnce and Wanderer were among my biggest supporters when I came forward showing that intercst got the number wrong in the study published at RetireEarlyHomePage.com. Both of them have come to the conclusion that there is no hope that intercst can ever be removed from that board and that thus honest and informed posters should give up on any chance of engaging in honest and informed discussions of early retirement at the board. I do not agree. That is the only reason why there is a rift between Wanderer and FoolMeOnce and lots of others on one side and me on the other.

I say that we can have intercst removed. The Motley Fool rules make clear in no uncertain terms that posters who engage in intercst-type posting practices will "not be tolerated" at that site. It appears that Tom Gardner, owner of the site, played a role in crafting those rules (the language at the top of this thread suggests strongly that this is so as it makes similar points to the point put forward in the "Learning Together" page of the site). Tom Gardner is going to help us re this matter in days to come.

Wanderer and FoolMeOnce and BenSolar and PeteyPerson and raddr and a number of others have chosen the wrong horse. These are all fine posters and we need their contributions at this site and at all sites at which early retirement is discussed. Please think over what you are doing, guys!

It is degrading for FoolMeOnce to post at the Motley Fool board given the circumstances that apply today. I can't say that it doesn't make me glad to see him remind the board from time to time of what it used to be. But it is degrading all the same for him to expose himself to the sort of abuse that he regularly exposes himself to. He should be trying to do what can be done to CHANGE the situation so that he and ALL OTHER honest and informed posters can use that board for the purposes for which it was created.

We are going to win this one, guys. We are going to have a new Golden Age at the Motley Fool board (and at a number of others). Hang in there, Wanderer. Hang in there, FoolMeOnce. We would get there quicker if the two of you would lend a hand. But we are going to get there either way. In the end, you will be posting in an honest and informed way once again and you will NOT be exposed to abuse when you do so.

Think it over and please ask any questions that you think would help you come to an informed decision as to how to proceed. It is easier if you direct them to me here, but I will make an effort to follow the action at the other boards to the extent that I can so that I will know what you are thinking about if you elect to do it the other way.

The real fireworks (the good kind!) are not all that far away anymore. Hang in there, all of you.
JWR1945
***** Legend
Posts: 1697
Joined: Tue Nov 26, 2002 3:59 am
Location: Crestview, Florida

Post by JWR1945 »

hocus2004 wrote:Both Wanderer and FoolMeOnce have recently responded to questions that I have asked of them at this board with responses posted to other boards. This is odd behavior. Wanderer should have responded here and FoolMeOnce should have responded here. That was the obviously right thing to do. Why didn't they?
Previously, I wrote:
I sometimes wonder if there will come a day when we will have achieved enough Normalization that Hocomania itself will become a thing of the past. Nothing like that could ever really happen, could it?
Possibly not. It could be the cost of fame.
I think that this is a matter of jealousy, nothing more.

Have fun.

John R.
hocus2004
Moderator
Posts: 752
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 7:33 am

Post by hocus2004 »

"I think that this is a matter of jealousy, nothing more. "

I believe that the green-eyed monster has had an influence on the proceedings from time to time. But I do not believe that jealousy has been the sole factor at play or even the dominant factor.
Post Reply