Can I Post Here or Not?

[hocus]

Dory36:

There is a post at the board connected with the RetireEarlyHomePage.com site saying that I have been "tossed" from this board.

Is that so?

It is a fact that a post that I put to this board this morning has been removed.

If I post here again, will that post be removed too? Do I retain the ability to post at this board or do I not?

Well, I hope so!

I was on another forum where the members all had their underwear in a bunch about your posts

They must be interesting, if nothing else

The other forum got boring enough, that I quit going there, because all they talked about was you and how your posts were complete poppycock!

[cute fuzzy bunny]

It seems to me from limited reading that the chief line of dissent is that there is one camp looking at one set of ideas that produces a belief that a 2% SWR is prudent, whereas another with a different set believe that 4% is ok.

Fact is, neither is correct. SWR is going to be a function of varying needs of the individual coupled with a whole bunch of events and occurrences that nobody knows and no formula can predict, augmented by how one tends to build their portfolio and its related (and unknown) future returns.

That doesnt appear to be the problem. What appears to be the problem is that some folks, and you ***** appear to be one, feel that not only are your ideas completely correct, but that the "other side" needs to cease and desist their "foolish" line of thinking. Further, in many cases the "other side" tends to be the material owner of the places of posting. That makes it rather problematic to change their line of thinking because the more you make trouble, the more likely they are to send you packing.

Your more recent posts, frankly the bulk of what I've read, are lengthy dissertations (believe me, i'm an expert on lengthy dissertations) on how everyone else is wrong, they need to stop their dissenting discussions, and you cant take the time right now to explain why they're wrong but its all been talked about before in other lengthy dissertations that do nothing other than quote one set of experts opinions that can and never will be concretely proven to be right or wrong until the events and time passes and we get to see for ourselves first hand.

Hence you have become a bit of a community troll, and there is no shortage of people willing to feed you.

Coming all the way back around, you may or may not be right. The 4 percenters may or may not be right. However there needs to be calm, unemotional discussion that doesnt lead to any scorched earth levels of frustration on anyones behalf. I'm talking about the kind of discussion similar to what percentage of stocks vs bonds vs foreign stocks is right for a certain level of return vs risk.

Can you do that? If you can then I see no reason why you cant and shouldnt participate.

If you feel that its more of a "my way or everyone else should hit the highway" and everyone else is wrong and always will be, and no reasonable ongoing discourse on the topic is worth your while, then perhaps you're better off going and making your own web site where like minded folk can gather and discuss your line of thinking without fear of moderation.

That having been said, this reminds me of one of the old star trek episodes where half of a race was black on the left side and white on the right, and the other half was the other way around. Or one of the more recent ones where half the population of a world believed the universe was created in 9 days and the other half was sure it was 10. In both cases both sides wiped each other out completely. Over fairly silly differences and where most agreed completely on most topics.

I think we have great common ground on investing principles with a reasonable distribution of ideas and approaches. We all agree on what it takes to get to an ER state. We all agree on a variance of lifestyles vs compatible portfolio sizes. We all agree to discuss with good information and good humor a wide variety of variances to these ideas of thinking.

Can we continue a dialog on a wide variety of discussions without the earth scorching? Then lets proceed. If this one area is intended to be your focal to the point of distraction, let me assure you that you will have no more luck in changing everyones mind than you have in the past. But i'm willing to listen to reasonable discussion.

[hocus]

If you feel that its more of a "my way or everyone else should hit the highway" and everyone else is wrong and always will be, and no reasonable ongoing discourse on the topic is worth your while....

I much appreciate you posting these comments, TH.

I do not even a little bit want to discourage others from posting views on SWRs different than my own. Dory36 and me go way back and I think he will vouch for me on this point. I have no problem whatsoever with the expression of dissenting points of view, lots of them.

There really is a problem that comes up re this particular topic, however. I looked into the SWR concept independently when I was putting together my Retire Early plan in the mid-90s. I worked out all sorts of possible strategies and each and every one of them proceed from the premise that changes in valuation affect the SWR. None of the investing ideas that I would like to share with the Retire Early commumity make the least bit of sense if the SWR for stocks is always 4 percent. If that really is so, then all of my strategies are nonsense strategies.

What happens on these discussions is that I begin describing a strategy by comparing the SWR of stocks with the SWR for some other asset class. I say something like, "now stocks look better from a growth perspective, but you have to limit your allocation to stocks if you cannot afford a SWR of 2 percent," and the next thing I know people are throwing bombs at me.

Most reasonable people don't like working their way through all the carnage that ensues. This has happened to me scores of times. I can't tell you how many SWR threads I have been on have been killed by way of disruptive posting.

This idea of "let the other guy have his say" has to be a two-way street. Obviously I believe that the SWR for stocks is not 4 percent at the current valuation levels. It doesn't upset me that a good number of others thing it is. But it does upset me that there are 90 community members who in the early days expressed a desire for reasoned discussion on my investing ideas and that those desires have been frutrated for 21 months now.

Those people have a right to the debate they asked to have. For the debate to proceed in a constructive manner, there has to be some limits on the posting tactics that can employed by the other side. I respect the right of those who think that the SWR is 4 percent to say that. Does the other side respect my right to say that at these valuation levels it is something less than that?

It seems to me that we need to reach some sort of consensus as to what an SWR is. If the SWR is a matter of personal opinion, then it can be anything that anyone wants it to be. If the SWR is the product of a numerical calculation, then it shouldn't be such a controversial matter to determine what it is. We should just do the darn calculation, and figure out what it is.

That's what JWR1945 did over on the SWR Research Group board. He did the calculation. The numbers he came up with back me up in my claims. So there now is a "boycott" of that board in effect. He puts up wonderful post after wonderful post, and there's one guy who talks to him every now and then.

Does that seem right to you? Does that seem constructive? Is that the way to help people learn how to retire early?

We are going through a process of change in our understanding of how the SWR is calculated, just as Peter Lynch has to go through a process of change when Scott Burns wrote a column telling him that it is not safe to just take 7 percent from your stock portfolio every year. There was a time when the best thinking was that 4 percent was the SWR. The people who did those studies did us all a favor by advancing our understandong of the question of what is safe. But we cannot remain locked into the conventional methodology way of looking at things forever.

We need to accept that the SWR concept is an evolving one. The data-based SWR concept that JWR1945 and I have developed is a powerful tool. It is to everyone's benefit for reasoned discussion on it to be permitted to go forward. I don't ever need to mention other studies if the findings of other studies are never brought up in the discussions. But if someone says "so and so says that the number is always 4" what would you have me do to respond to that claim other than to show that the methodology used to produce it is analytically flawed?

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Well again, I havent been involved in the day to day discussions that led to the levels of angst that appear to exist, and frankly I've read so much on this stuff that digging back into it all makes little sense to me.

That having been said, based on my own calculations, beliefs, and reviews of various methods, my withdrawal rate is in fact somewhere in the area of 4%. It was there before I started reading any of these boards or any of this information or anyone elses methodology.

Its roughly 4% for two reasons. One is that 4% of my nest egg is roughly what I need to live on, and I really cant cut back much further without seriously impacting my way of life. And I'd rather go back to work than live below the standard that I live nowe. The second reason is that the 4% amount is approximately the amount of dividends and interest my investments throw off. While living on the dividends, I'm using capital gains on the investments to offset inflation. Four years into my plan its working. During one of the least healthy periods for investing I've not only held my ground but i've gained ground.

My plan is simple. Live off the level of dividends produced, which are very unlikely to drop below the 4% I need/want, and if they go up, reinvest unused capital. If I start running out of money, I'll work part time to make it up. If I start badly running out of money, go back to work full time and rebuild the nest egg.

So that method works for me. Would I be interested in a method that lets me draw more safely? You bet. But I havent seen one yet.

A valuation based model is interesting to me because I still havent fully surrendered to the balanced index fund thinking. Long term I believe that you can set a fixed rate and generic investment tools and during that long run, probably do ok. In times of great uncertaintees like funny monetary policy, absurdly low interest rates, overvalued stocks, overvalued real estate, terrorists and whatnot, I like the idea of my investments being guided by someone with at least one hand on the wheel. I think many investments are overvalued right now and few are fairly or undervalued.

Its not my board but from my perspective, I dont see any reason to run you off. But I would respect the opinion of the board operators because its effectively their property and they can choose to craft whatever environment for discussion they see fit. Supression of free speech is a right when the government is involved, but not in individual forums.

If the dialog is interesting, I'm all ears and will contribute to the dialog.

Trust however that if behavior occurs which is non or counter productive, I will surely let you know exactly what isnt right about it and perhaps how to approach it such that someone may find it more palatable. Further, should you simply make an ass of yourself, I'll quickly assert my rather small vote to send you packing as well.

I think that to start though, should the local barkeeps allow you to stay, that you push that 2000lb chip off your shoulder and prepare to start anew.

Cheers.

[dory36]

Hi *****,

No one yet has ever been blocked on this forum.

I have only ever removed one post. It was removed because it was posted here only to continue remarks on a totally different forum, when the owner of that forum blocked it there. That seemed pretty far over the edge.

While the two forums (fori? fora?) have a somewhat similar theme, the members of this one were quite clear about not wanting to merge with the other when that option was broached. The protracted SWR feud on the other forum was cited several times as a reason to retain our separate identity.

I think it has become obvious to everyone that you believe that a withdrawal rate in the 4% range is too risky. Wonderful! I think you misread what many SWR proponents believe. Frankly, as far as I can tell, all of the public efforts that Scott Burns and other users of the SWR concept have expended have been to convince people that 10-12% rates were totally unrealistic, not to get them to spend more in retirement to get up to 4%.

So can't we just agree that a withdrawal of significantly in excess of 4% is folly based on everything we know from history, and a lower withdrawal might be prudent to the extent that you think that future returns will be worse?

Personally, if 4% doesn't work out, I'll just tighten my belt, and/or (gulp) do something to bring in more money, just like I have done all my life when my income didn't match my expenses. I expect it will be pretty easy to see if things aren't working out - Vanguard tells me every month where I stand.

In any event, SWR topics make up a very small percentage of what we talk about here. 33 threads out of 539 -- about 6%. We could delete it and not miss much (and I will, if it becomes a sore spot).

We talk about retirement lifestyles, about places to live, about goofy scams we get in email, about fishing, about going back to school after retirement, about costs of living and how to stretch those %*& dryer cloths. Given half a chance, I will find some way to talk about boating, John Galt will talk about how to avoid stocks altogether, and Cut-Throat will go fishing.

As you mentioned, you and I go back many years. I remember when I first contemplated retiring early, the FAQ on the old TMF board suggested reading any of your philosophical musings if one wanted to understand the quest for early retirement. They were wonderful. They dealt with following your dreams, with doing what you really wanted to do, not just what you had to do to pay the bills. Well, that's where the people on this board are, or are trying to get to.

I think there is a lot of room for passionate views on following one's dreams. I don't see any place for emotion in arithmetic.

I pay out of my pocket for the server space and bandwidth to keep this forum up. I do so solely because I enjoy interacting with and reading the interactions of the friends I have made on this forum, and making new friends on the forum, even though I have never met one of them face to face.

Friends don't always agree on everything or even on most things. They can agree to disagree. When that happens, they usually spend their time on other topics. They don't take every opportunity to express their disagreement. When they are incapable of this, they become disruptive.

Just as I would not invite a disruptive person to a gathering of friends at my home, I will "disinvite" a disruptive person to any other gathering of friends that I am hosting at my own expense.

I am out of steam. Bottom line: you and anyone else are initially welcome to post here, if you'll follow the "reasonable person" principle. (Reasonable people don't need a definition.)

Dory36

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Good deal Dory...from the looks of things though the two of us will end up creating a string of threads with posts so long our fingers will wear off and we'll no longer be able to post until someone figures out how to convert lint and used dryer sheets into finger implants.

[hocus]

I pay out of my pocket for the server space and bandwidth to keep this forum up.

I understand and I applaud you for it. But it's not just money that is paid in getting discussion boards going. I paid many thousands of hours of my time building the Motley Fool board into the second most successful board in the site's history. It took me 12 years of research work to be able to do that, it tool me 40 thick binders worth of material to pull it off. I did my homework before I put up my first post and I had a purpose in mind from the time I put up that first post.

The purpose was not just to create the second best finance-related board in Motley Fool's history. It was to create the most exciting and enriching board on the face of the internet. I am going to achieve that purpose. I am going to achieve it not just for me, but for the scores of people who sent me e-mails thanking me for what I did to build up that board. Those people matter to me, their dreams matter to me, and I am going to see that they are given the tools they need to achieve those dreams.

It was not just me that built up that board. You did too. Hundreds of others did too. All of the people who built up that board had a purpose in mind when they did so, even if they did not stop to think it thorugh at the time. They wanted a place where people could exchange ideas on how to achieve financial independence early in life. There should be such a discussion board in this world, one where any on-topic subject can be raised and discussed in an honest and informed manner.

I hope you make it this place, but I of course respect your right to elect to take a pass. It is going to happen somewhere, I know that much for sure. I am retired, so I can devote the next 20 years to the project of providing people helpful advice on how to retire early. I think that a discussion board that permits informed discussion of SWRs is much needed, and I am going to continue to do what I can to see that such a place is brought into existence.

It was removed because it was posted here only to continue remarks on a totally different forum, when the owner of that forum blocked it there. That seemed pretty far over the edge.

The post was put up to share with the Retire Early community the text of an e-mail that I sent to Scott Burns. The community has expressed an intense interest in the subject of SWRs and the sending of the e-mail was a development of some significance. People should be able to read it themselves and decide for themselves what they think of it. I didn't post it here first. I posted it elsewhere and it was deleted, for obvious reasons. It was not even a little bit over the edge for me to post it here in those circumstances.

The members of this one were quite clear about not wanting to merge with the other when that option was broached. The protracted SWR feud on the other forum was cited several times as a reason to retain our separate identity. *

The comments made on the thread on which the merger was discussed revealed the good sense of this board community. The decision you made was to your credit.

I think it has become obvious to everyone that you believe that a withdrawal rate in the 4% range is too risky.

I do not think that a 4 percent withdrawal rate is too risky. I take a 4 percent withdrawal in my own plan. I say that the SWR for a high stock allocation portfolio is not 4 percent at these valuation levels. That's a very different thing.

So can't we just agree that a withdrawal of significantly in excess of 4% is folly based on everything we know from history,

We have demonstrated at the SWR Research Group board that a withdrawal well in excess of 4 percent is safe in many circumstances. I think that that is something that aspiring early retirees should want to know about.

if 4% doesn't work out, I'll just tighten my belt

That's fine for you, Dory36.. There are some others who would like to know what the historical data says about what withdrawal rate is safe in advance of the time they hand in their resignation notices. I feel into that group. I spent years researching this question because I wanted my plan to work. I wanted to get it right. I think that that was a perfectly reasonable desire on my part.

I don't see any place for emotion in arithmetic.

There's no emotion in my arithmetic, [b]Dory36.[/b/ Zero. That's just the problem. I say we should base our SWR claims on what the historical data says, and there are some who are intensely opposed to the idea of having those sorts of discussions go forward. There's a lot of emotion at play in the effort to block the discussions. There's no emotion in saying "let's take a look at what the data says."

they usually spend their time on other topics.

I am about 18 months behind on work that is important to me because of the time that I have had to put into the SWR matter. I do not have time to post on other subjects at this moment. I hope that time opens up at some later date. But the most pressing need for the Retire Early community today is that some space be opened up for reasonsed discussion of the SWR matter.

[moguls]

Thank you Dory36. Couldn't have said it better.

But something tells me this SWR issue is not going to end any time soon. Quite frankly, I've stopped reading these posts, because they become counter productive and only serve to let the author vent. Besides, it's like reading the same 500 page novel over and over and over again.

When will some realize that it's OK to disagree.

Moguls
(I have a completely open mind - as long as you agree with me!!!)

[panhead]

Well, it's good (?) to see that we have finally come full circle and the "Great Debate has finally come to this board. *****, I've been reading your stuff (and intrcst's and everyone elses) views on this subject for years. Honestly, I've never really understood where the disagreement comes from. Let me see if I can explain what I mean in a fairly succinct manner.

We have a study that shows a sustainable 4% (approximately) withdrawal WAS sustainable given a certain asset allocation. The "WAS" should be obvious, but it just means that this is a model created out of historical data. It really is that simple, and the method applied to create it was fairly simple as well. Did it work ? Of course it did, we can prove it and have (see retireearlyhomepage, or get the data and do it for yourself). Is it possible a 4% withdrawal won't work in the future ? Of course it is. It is a basic and obvious assumption of using historical data to predict future events. Could you come up with a different SWR using other investment classes and putting more and more detail into the study ? Absolutely, but there is an inherent flaw with adding more and more detail to a model based on historical data, It makes the conclusions drawn less and less accurate. Someone more familiar with statistical analysis could explain it better than I, but I consider it similar to the concept of "multiplying an error" in mathematics. Its the concept of getting an answer to a problem with greater degree of accuracy than the original data given had provided. It's not possible to do, the result is incorrect, and the more times the data is manipulated, the greater the error becomes.

Now, Dory brought up some very good points, when I was visting the forum on the fool website, I remember on the faq as well a suggestion to read "all posts by *****." I did, and then I was glad I did as well. You had many very useful insights on a more philosophical level on early retirement. They made me think, and they made me smile. That's the ***** that I miss, and he was a valued contributor.

As for SWR, I think "TH" really has the right idea, he said the following:

"My plan is simple. Live off the level of dividends produced, which are very unlikely to drop below the 4% I need/want, and if they go up, reinvest unused capital. If I start running out of money, I'll work part time to make it up. If I start badly running out of money, go back to work full time and rebuild the nest egg. "

In the end, this is the reality that anyone retiring early has to accept. We are applying historical data to future events, and the best that will provide is a guide (as I outlined above). We will all have to roll with punches that an unknown future will bring. I'm not saying TH's investment principals are sound, I'm just saying that if anyone is going to retire very early, we simply need to be open to the fact we may have to cut back, return to work, whatever.

Now, if someone out there knows what the next 30 years will bring as far as returns in all asset classes, I will without hesitation inform everyone on this and all other retire early forums of what the exact SWR is. Wouldn't that be nice ;-) !!

OK, after holding back for years I've given my $.02 worth of input. My last comment is, if ***** or anyone else wants to delve deeper into this issue, please, start talking about the issue, not how to talk about the issue, whether or not you can talk about the issue, what the issue is, or anything else, just talk about what you have to offer.

regards,

panhead

"When one lives in the shadow of insanity, the presence of another mind that thinks and acts as yours does is something close to a blessed event"

--Robert Pirsig
"Zen and the art of Motorcycle Maintenance"

[dory36]

Quote:

...SWR topics make up a very small percentage of what we talk about here. 33 threads out of 539 -- about 6%. We could delete it and not miss much (and I will, if it becomes a sore spot)...

Quote:

...I do not have time to post on other subjects at this moment. I hope that time opens up at some later date. But the most pressing need for the Retire Early community today is that some space be opened up for reasonsed discussion of the SWR matter.

I think you have just described why you need to take this discussion elsewhere. Don't try to hijack an existing group and turn it to your agenda. I don't mean this as invective; it's just the only way I can see what you are describing as your goal.

Rather than try to steer discussions among an existing group into a topic that they do not currently spend much time on, why not create your own discussion area in one of the many places that provide free discussion group facilities, such as Yahoo!, MSN, and others, or one of the many places that offer such facilities for a fee.

Not only can you say what you wish there, you can deal with those who attempt to disrupt your discussion area as you wish.

Anyone reading your messages can see that you are strong in your conviction. But I'm not sure that "the Retire Early community" universally accepts anyone as the arbiter of what their pressing need might be. But to the extent that you are correct in your assessment of what many believe they need, then your forum will be successful.

You are also welcome to announce here briefly where readers can find your new forum.

If you find time to post on other subjects and want to join in the discussions that take place here, you are welcome to do so.

Can we now stick a fork in this and call it done?

Dory36

[hocus]

Can we now stick a fork in this and call it done?

OK.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

Ok, well having seen it first hand, I think I now understand.

*****, you feel like you've been a major positive contributor to the early retirement community. There are a lot of bricks in these communities foundations with your name on them. From what many have said, historically this was in fact very true. You feel that your positive contributions have added a great deal to helping people achieve and maintain ER. Also apparently quite true.

Heres the rub: you're on Jihad. You feel that you have an idea that is misunderstood, unique, and highly valued that people just dont seem to get, and you're not going to stop until they do.

Unfortunately at this point you've become the <fill in your favorite weird religion> guy that bangs on the front door every day at dinnertime. Your (possibly good) story is no longer the issue, its the persistent banging.

You do know the old saw, that insanity is defined as doing the same thing the same way over and over and expecting a different result? Lack of persistence is usually not the problem.

I would second Dory's suggestion that you get your own "outlet" for your ideas and if they're good, the masses will follow.

Its a simple matter of making the discussion about your ideas and not about the persistent banging. You're simply not going to get that on any of the existing forums at this point. Possibly unfair, but thats how it is. It will also be how it is 2 months from now, and 2 years from now.

Build it and they will come?

[brewer12345]

Dory, I hate to say this, but you might as well save yourself a lot of time and aggravation and just block ***** now.

[Nords]

... blocking isn't the answer. Dory's on the right track.

"Blocking", when tried at other boards, just forces the troller underground. Witness the "Taylor" drama at FundAlarm. They post under different names or try to sneak in posts when the moderator's on a coffee break. The best (and most difficult) answer is to explain the rules to them and then to ignore them-- they'll eventually go away.

Besides, Merriam-Webster claims that we may be missing the whole point:
Main Entry: ho·cus
Pronunciation: 'hO-k&s
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): ho·cussed or ho·cused; ho·cus·sing or ho·cus·ing
Etymology: obsolete *****, n., short for *****-pocus
1 : to perpetrate a trick or hoax on : DECEIVE
2 : to befuddle often with drugged liquor; also : DOPE, DRUG <hocussed the favorite before the race>

[bongo2]

Quote:

As you mentioned, you and I go back many years. I remember when I first contemplated retiring early, the FAQ on the old TMF board suggested reading any of your philosophical musings if one wanted to understand the quest for early retirement. They were wonderful. They dealt with following your dreams, with doing what you really wanted to do, not just what you had to do to pay the bills.

Does this stuff still exist on the internet where I could read it?

[dory36]

It was on the Early Retirement board at The Motley Fool back in 1998 or 1999.

In about 2000 they deleted the search capability for old threads.

In about 2001 they started charging something like $5/month or $30/year to read their board. Many dropped out of that board then.

Since I dropped out, I don't know if they still have the old archives or if the search feature is still there.

There was a bit of a spirited discussion when they announced that anything posted there belonged to The Motley Fool and could not be taken elsewhere, even by the person who had posted it.

Dory36

[bongo2]

*****, Dory, what would you think about re-posting some of that stuff here?

[dory36]

Quote:

... they announced that anything posted there belonged to The Motley Fool and could not be taken elsewhere, even by the person who had posted it.

Copy and paste, if anyone could find the originals, might be a bit of a problem, but if we can get past that problem, sure!

Dory36

[arrete]

Copy and paste, if anyone could find the originals, might be a bit of a problem, but if we can get past that problem, sure!

Haven't posted for a while, but only ***** can give permission to have his stuff posted on another board. If he gives his permission, then someone still with access to the Fool could bring over some of the older, non-SWR posts.

arrete