Millionaire Mommy Next Door

[CuppaJoe]

"The Bernie Ward problem" is that he did something on the InterNet that he didn't know was illegal. I don't know if using the expression "Millionaire Next Door" on the title of a blog is acceptible, do you?

 

[Moemg]

I've been reading your blog ( I'll do anything to avoid weeding ) and it's very interesting . I especially liked the fnancial infidelity segment . Don't let these guys scare you away ! They are basically harmless .

 

[MillionaireMommyNextDoor]

$1,600,000 in investible assests supports a 4% SWR of $64,000 /year, not $89,000 / year (although I do note that you posted that you're spending less) I wouldn't call you FI based on those assets and projected spending amounts at your age of 43.

As I've mentioned, I am able to plug in many variables into the Lifetime Financial Planner tool I use (and update annually). This software calculator takes a much deeper look into my financial future than simply applying the common rule of thumb of a 4% withdrawal rate. If you're interested, I can see if there is a way I can copy and paste my various assumptions and results here so you can see them.

I'd also recommend a cash cushion of five years to help ride out market downturns once you do start living off your portfolio. What is the 20-year historical volatility of your method?

This would be a great idea if I was a buy-and-hold investor. But I'm not. Please refer to the NoLoad FundX web site for details (the strategy, long-term performance and volatility record).

With that said, I have poked around your blog, and you are far ahead on the financial knowledge and assets curve. While I have some criticisms and disagreeements, you are no spammer. I hope you continue to post.

Thank you.

 

[brewer12345]

Thanks for the tips. I'll give it another try soon. Have you tried MS Money's Lifetime Planner tool? If so, how did your results compare to those using FireCalc?

I haven't played with MS money's planner tool, but I would hazard a guess that it is pretty simplistic. Generally, portfolio planners fall under three categories:

1) Deterministic: input your expected return, inflation assumption, assets, spending and voila, out comes a nice, smooth, confidence-inspiring curve showing ever-growing net worth. Just compounds everything at the rates you supply. Very simplistic, not evry realistic/useful.
2) Historical simulation: Like firecalc. You input your assets, spending and a few other details (age, interim cashflows, etc.), and then the calculator shows you how you would have done in several dozen historical scenarios. These calculators assume the future will be similar to the past, but if you can make it through 1966-1982, you are likely to be OK in everything but a meteor strike.
3) Stochastic/monte carlo: these simulators work on statistical models, using assumptions about volatility of returns and other rates, and assumptions about mean reversion, serial trends, etc. These can get really complicated and may not be understandable if you don't have a background in statistics, but are useful for stress testing. I tend to think of these as "test to destruction" models.

Of the three, I would guess the MS money tool fits in category 1. Be very, very careful in relying on such a tool. Regardless of what any calculator tells you, your plan should ideally have multiple failsafes.

 

[MillionaireMommyNextDoor]

"The Bernie Ward problem" is that he did something on the InterNet that he didn't know was illegal. I don't know if using the expression "Millionaire Next Door" on the title of a blog is acceptible, do you?

My father is also an attorney, albeit a family one, but he hasn't mentioned a problem with it. I think the important part here is that I'm not selling anything. I'm just a mommy-personal-finance blogger. It's also my understanding that there are many instances where authors/publishers title their books with the same title as one previously published by an different author. And there is NOT a book titled MMommyND.

This said, if/when I finish my book, I'll have an attorney vet everything out for me before publishing it.

You're an attorney, correct? What do you know about this issue? Care to share?

 

[CuppaJoe]

You're an attorney, correct? What do you know about this issue? Care to share?

No, I already did say I don't know if it's a problem. But it does raise a red flag.

 

[Martha]

MMND, given that your blog has turned into a topic of discussion, I see no problem if you want to post a link, when pertinent, to the applicable section of your blog.

For those who haven't already figured it out, here is her blog: Millionaire Mommy Next Door

 

[SecondCor521]

No, I already did say I don't know if it's a problem. But it does raise a red flag.

[moderator edit] MMND, did you get permission from JKLasser to quote their press release? I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't look like your blog post qualifies under the fair use doctrine.

In any case, [moderator edit] you didn't clearly identify the passage as being a quote from another source, nor adequately attribute it. The paragraph just prior to the extensive quote isn't good enough in my book. [moderator edit]
2Cor521

 

[MillionaireMommyNextDoor]

[moderator edit] (see here for the JKLasser source). MMND, did you get permission from JKLasser to quote their press release? I'm not a lawyer, but it doesn't look like your blog post qualifies under the fair use doctrine.

In any case,[moderator edit]you didn't clearly identify the passage as being a quote from another source, nor adequately attribute it. The paragraph just prior to the extensive quote isn't good enough in my book. [moderator edit]

2Cor521

Good grief, yes, JKLasser ASKED me to post it. It's a press release for their new book! Would you like me to foward you their original email request to prove it to you?

 

[ChrisC]

Good grief, yes, JKLasser ASKED me to post it. It's a press release for their new book! Would you like me to foward you their original email request to prove it to you?

Good grief is so true.

 

[FinanceDude]

Good grief is so true.

 

[haha]

She may be self taught, she may be recently trained, but she is clearly a skilled marketer. After all, she has us reading her blog, none of which is new or particularly helpful to people who already are working a successful plan.

If she sticks around until her book comes out, she will get some sales off this site. Also, she gets additional traffic to her blog, all of which should help her find a publisher.

Play Buzz Word Bingo on her site. Doesn't take long to hear Bingo!

The value of her advice hardly matters. Her advice isn't the point. She is young, female, photogenic and knows buzz speak. She is even passionate! Of course so is Rob Bennet, but somehow that just doesn't seem the same.

She has been on TV after all. How do you really sell personal finance books? The same way you sell diet books, relationship books, exercise books- get yourself on Oprah.

All this and she's a Mommy too.

So please let's not attack her or defend her. She is doing just fine. It won't matter if her investment methods turn out to be not so good over time, becasue she will have something better. A successful, easily run business.

Some of us may someday have the energy and chutzpah to try something like this; she is giving us a free template.

Meanwhile her husband who would rather crawl around the business end of sewer pipes (for fun mind you) than play golf or take a gourmet cooking class can continue to have fun the way he likes.

Ha

 

[twaddle]

Ah, moderation at last.

 

[brewer12345]

Meanwhile her husband who would rather crawl around the business end of sewer pipes (for fun mind you) than play golf or take a gourmet cooking class can continue to have fun the way he likes.

Ha

Something about that sound not quite kosher to you? I didn't think of it that way, but now that you mention it...

I think that MMND is getting some flack because she is showing a dangerously high reading on the hoco-meter.

 

[twaddle]

So please let's not attack her or defend her. She is doing just fine. It won't matter if her investment methods turn out to be not so good over time, becasue she will have something better. A successful, easily run business.

I think the fact that she's intelligent and interesting and *new* here should be enough. No need to question her motives. No need for the volunteer posse to round her up. No need for a preemptive strike.

How about a simple welcome and perhaps an engaging conversation or two?

 

[lets-retire]

Good thing she's not in college then, eh.

 

[brewer12345]

I think the fact that she's intelligent and interesting and *new* here should be enough. No need to question her motives. No need for the volunteer posse to round her up. No need for a preemptive strike.

How about a simple welcome and perhaps an engaging coversation or two?

I think we are up to about a dozen engaging conversations all on two threads.

As for motives, I would generally agree except that her first post included a marketing link and just about every post references her blog. I am mostly convinced she isn't simply a spammer or scam artist, but not quite all the way there. But I could say the same about Suze Orman and Barrack Obama.

 

[twaddle]

As for motives, I would generally agree except that her first post included a marketing link and just about every post references her blog. I am mostly convinced she isn't simply a spammer or scam artist, but not quite all the way there. But I could say the same about Suze Orman and Barrack Obama.

She may turn out to be the devil incarnate. Wouldn't that be great.

 

[Martha]

No, I already did say I don't know if it's a problem. But it does raise a red flag.

Titles to books cannot be copyrighted. That is why different books can end up with the same title.

A book title in and of itself also cannot be trademarked, but there are circumstances where a trademark can later develop if the title is used to market other goods or services beyond that first book.

Not legal advice, but there is a lot of legal assumptions that are going on in this thread.

 

[brewer12345]

She may turn out to be the devil incarnate. Wouldn't that be great.

I always thought Suze was. Oh, you are talking about MMND...

Nah. Not persistent enough. Look at how doggedly persistent h05uk was in his nonsense. Couldn't leave it alone for 5 minutes, musta been peeing into the wastebasket at his desk so he could keep writing. In contrast, MMND has clearly had almost enough to produce an extended absence.

 

[haha]

I think the fact that she's intelligent and interesting and *new* here should be enough. No need to question her motives. No need for the volunteer posse to round her up. No need for a preemptive strike.

How about a simple welcome and perhaps an engaging conversation or two?

Oh Twaddle, you are so nice today. And it isn't even a sunny day.

Ha

 

[twaddle]

Oh Twaddle, you are so nice today. And it isn't even a sunny day.

You don't know how hard it was to find a phone booth so I could change into my superhero costume.

Twaddle, Defender of Trolls, reporting for duty!

 

[Moemg]

Martha ,
It may be time to use your whip !

 

[SecondCor521]

Please, rather than accuse me of something I haven't done, tell me what YOU would have done differently, please.

Martha said to drop it, so I will. But I will also answer your question more explicitly since you asked. What I would have done in your shoes is the following things:

If I considered my blog a personal enterprise, I would:

1. Provided a link back to the original press release.
2. Put quotation marks around the material that you quoted.
3. Indicate that JKLasser holds a copyright and that the material was used with permission.

If I considered my blog a professional enterprise, I would also research what the standards of attribution are, by looking at other well-known blogs, and perhaps the websites of well-respected newspapers to see what they do.

It sounds like your intent was good, and I appreciate that. I also admire you sticking it out here through the rough welcome you've received (part of that roughness being from me). I had my hackles up in response to your first several posts and was too mean in what I wrote above. I apologize for my tone.

2Cor521

 

[MillionaireMommyNextDoor]

What is it, specifically, about my very brief participation here on this forum that has some of you so riled up? Never in my life have I experienced such a gang-up.

I came here because I don't know any FIRE folks personally and I'd like to share conversation, tips, yes - even enjoy the occasional debate - with people that have been-there-done-that. Contrary to popular speculation here, I HAVE NOTHING TO SELL YOU. Even if/when I write a book, it would be for financial newbies, not forum members here. I have nothing financially to gain by participating on this forum! If you're here, you don't need my "advice".

I've found that the personal finance blogosphere is full of in-debt writers blogging about their journey to financial solvency. While I enjoy my conversations with these nice folks, my intention is to reach out to people who are experiencing the FIRE phase of their life, too.

Is there something I can do to ease this mistrust? Is it possible to move on to constructive conversation here?