Yahoo "Finance Quiz"

It's in sharp contrast to the 0% stock position taken by our most verbose troll.

Intercst:

This is unacceptable.

If you are unable to rein in your abusive posting tendencies when the SWR topic is being discussed, I ask that you refrain from participating on SWR threads altogether.
 
Here is post to JFP article:

www.fpanet.org/journal/articles/2004_Issues/jfp0304-art8.cfm?&

The article also discusses the impacts of the first 10 years of retirement when the market has been good, average and bad, and what should be done. Overall a good article. Also includes charts which give a graphical representation of investment results based on several variables. The two main focuses are longevity of portfolio and increasing portfolio value over time. Identifies the three worst periods in the market over last 75 years. Advises to realize this can haapen again but to take a disciplined approach to investing.
 
It's in sharp contrast to the 0% stock position taken by our most verbose troll.

Intercst:

This is unacceptable.

If you are unable to rein in your abusive posting tendencies when the SWR topic is being discussed, I ask that you refrain from participating on SWR threads altogether.
Click to expand...

Excellent post, *****.

Short, direct, and to the point.

If you can adopt the same, concise posting style while not misconstruing the work of respected SWR researchers like Bernstein, Trevino, and Robertson, you'll be well on the way to building credibility.

intercst
 
Here is post to JFP article:

www.fpanet.org/journal/articles/2004_Issues/jfp0304-art8.cfm?&

The article also discusses the impacts of the first 10 years of retirement when the market has been good, average and bad, and what should be done. Overall a good article. Also includes charts which give a graphical representation of investment results based on several variables. The two main focuses are longevity of portfolio and increasing portfolio value over time. Identifies the three worst periods in the market over last 75 years. Advises to realize this can haapen again but to take a disciplined approach to investing.
Click to expand...

Yes. That 1994 article by William P. Bengen is one of the best on the subject. Back then it wasn't uncommon for well-dressed, impressively-credentialed financial professionals to tell their clients they could withdraw 7% to 10% per year from a retirement portfolio. Bengen was one of the few voices of reason.

intercst
 
Excellent post, *****.
 
It's good to hear you say so, intercst.

...you'll be well on the way to building credibility.

Let's not get too carried away with the mushy stuff. All continuing dramas require a wee bit of conflict to maintain their hold on the reader's interest, you know.
 
 
Back then it wasn't uncommon for well-dressed, impressively-credentialed financial professionals to tell their clients they could withdraw 7% to 10% per year from a retirement portfolio.

William Bernstein described the Trinity study (a conventional methodology study) as a "breakthrough" piece of research. I agree with that assessment.
 
Re:  C'mon, guys.

Intercst, *****, the educational & enlightening quality of the discourse takes a steep nosedive when you two get together.

Intercst, let ***** do his thing to himself. It does no good to the board or to the rest of us to have to watch you continue baiting him. I agree that he gave you a lot of frustration in the past, but you're a moderator and we expect better conduct from you. Get over it. When you play, we all pay. Stop provoking *****.

*****, it's not unacceptable-- you've earned it. I've defended your rights but you're abusing the privilege. You are, word for word, the most prolix poster on this board and on every other board I've read. Your words-to-answers ratio is so high (especially when you don't answer the questions!) that I skip over your posts. When this board implements M*'s "Ingore Poster" feature your name will be at the top of my list.

Intercst is also correctly using the word "troll" in its Internet sense. (Here's a definition from http://members.aol.com/intwg/trolls.htm#WIAT .)
Your verbosity is at odds to the image of the author you claim to be and to your ability to teach others. So is the fact that you don't answer the questions you're asked.

You're single-handedly destroying your SWR claims by not distilling all the "golden years" of "SWR historic posts" to demonstrate their significance. Yeah, there were some good posts a while back on other boards that might have helped. What have you done since then to improve the subject? Maybe a little introspection will show you that you're trolling yourself as well.

So, *****-- Get over it. Shorten your posts, answer the questions, stop behaving like a troll, and maybe you'll earn a little more respect.

I'm done debating this in a public forum. If you have any further contributions, e-mail me at Nords_Nords@Hotmail.com . There's not a 5000-word limit to the length of your e-mails but there is one to my patience, so edit accordingly.
 
*****, it's not unacceptable-- you've earned it.

The community as a whole has not "earned" it. The community as a whole deserves better.

You're single-handedly destroying your SWR claims by not distilling all the "golden years" of "SWR historic posts" to demonstrate their significance.

The significance of the data-based SWR tool is demonstrated each time that a community member makes use of it to enhance the effectiveness of his or her Retire Early plan. You don't have to scroll very far back in this thread to read the words of several posters expressing gratitude for the help that the tool has provided them.

If over the course of the next few years I can manage to put forward a few more "mistake" posts like the one I put forward on May 13, 2002, there will be hundreds of thousands of middle-class workers achieving early retirement years sooner than they previously thought possible. Making that happen is what it is all about, Nords.
 
You don't have to scroll very far back in this thread to read the words of several posters expressing gratitude for the help that the tool has provided them.
Click to expand...
*****, I thanked JWR1945 for providing another valuation tool that I might use (along with others) to determine a good time to possibly add to my stock holdings at some time in the future. I do NOT buy into the way you are using the tool. JWR1945 has provided information that has been useful to me on this and other issues. However, my thanks was directed to John, not to you. I agree completely with Nords' assessment of your behavior. Your posts have cast a pall over any discussion pertaining to SWR.

I want to be very clear about this, just in case my post was one you referenced to refute Nords' comments. Nords was dead-on correct and I agree with everything he said.
 
My 2c. *****, love your non swr posts. Cant tell if I like or agree with your SWR posts because they're too long to read, often dont address questions asked, and at the end of the day nobody really knows what strategy will or wont work because we cant predict the future.

In that, anyone who says their "way" "method" or "idea" is the "right" one is a fool at best, and one takes a firm solid step into asshattery when one says that their idea is not only the "most" "right" one but its made even more "most" "right" because a couple of guys who wrote a few books agree with them.

I think the very basic nature of this thinking - not being in an asset class thats overvalued, or at least not getting into one while its overvalued...or perhaps its getting out at the right time...bears some thinking. But it hasnt worked for most people and the successful creation of a tool that really and truly worked to predict this could result in enough wealth generation for the creator that their SWR would be pretty darn good as a result...and not from using the tool.

On the other hand, I dont see why you cant or shouldnt say what you want any way you want, as long as you want. We're all equipped with our own internal "ignore" feature if we choose to use it.

Some appear to have burned out that ability. Unfortunate.

Come on you guys, its just money.
 
My thanks was directed to John, not to you.

I understand that what you meant to express in your posts was thanks to JWR1945 and not me. That's not the critical issue, however, at least not to me.

The reality is that you are now using the tool that I developed in 1996. I made use of the tool and it saved my retirement. BenSolar has made use of the tool and in all likelihood it is going to save him hundreds of thousands of dollars. JWR1945 has made use of the tool and in all likelihood that is going to mean that his daughters are going to inherit more money than they otherwise would have. You and Mikey and perhaps some others are now making use of the tool, and you will all enjoy safer and more financially rewarding investment strategies as a result.

That's the bottom line in my book. That's why I do this. For three years, I was one of the most loved posters in the history of the Motley Fool site. That was nice. Would it have been worth it to have held back from sharing the data-based SWR tool so that I could have remained one of the most loved posters for another two years? I say no. This is my job. This is what I do for a living. It's nice to be popular, but that is not the most important thing. The most important thing is to do the job that needs to be done.

I got the job done. I had hundreds of obstacles thrown in my path. I had every trick described in the Manual of Internet Posting Tricks thrown at me. In the end, it didn't matter. I found someone to do the statistical research needed to prove out my claims. I founded a board where he could post his research. I communcicated with him by e-mail for two years so that we could keep things moving in the right direction. Now I will proceed to writing a book exploring how the tool works in depth and to creating media publicity for the tool so that more people can take advantage of it.

All this hard work paid off. People are now realizing benefits from making use of the tool I created. That's what I wanted to see happen. It was the desire to see that happen that prompted me to take the chance of putting up the post that kicked this thing off and to put the work in that was required to keep it going for so long.

Your posts have cast a pall over any discussion pertaining to SWR.

My post of May 13, 2002, was a substance post. It was a wonderful substance post, and I have the tesimony of 90-plus community members who told me so. Starting on that first day, there were posts put forward that were aimed at creating diversions so that the substance of the issue would not be explored. I objected to those tactics on the first day and I have objected to them hundreds and hundreds of times since.

I am not responsible for the posting tactics employed by other posters. I have responded to questions and comments and concerns raised in posts put to the various boards, some sincere, some probably not so. I responded to the ones that seemed to be causing enough confusion to merit a response. I responded in the most constructive manner that I possibly could to as many of them as I possibly could. That is what posters on discussion boards are supposed to do.

I have been posting for over five years and have 2.500 posts to my credit. I have never once in that time put forward any sort of ridicule post or personal attack or engaged in any other sort of nonsense posting behavior. How many other posters do you know of who can boast of that sort of record?

If you never thank me, others will. There are hundreds of thousands of people out in the world who want to know what it takes to put together effective Retire Early plans. They don't care about any of this Debate About Having a Debate nonsense. They care about knowing what works. We all have a far more advanced understanding of what works today than we did on May 12, 2002. That's the bottom line.

The nonsense stuff gets blown away in the wind in 15 minutes. The substance stuff will be helping people achieve their most important life goals for many years to come.
 
My 2c.  *****, love your non swr posts.

I appreciate you saying that, TH. I love the non-SWR stuff too, of course. I promised you at an earlier time that I would be distributing Advance Reader copies of my book here, and I will be, and when that happens, my hope is that the material in the book might generate a few thought-provoking non-SWR threads. Progress on that front is moving slower than I had anticipated (as it has at every single stage of the book production process), but we will get there one of these days.

I dont see why you cant or shouldnt say what you want any way you want, as long as you want.  We're all equipped with our own internal "ignore" feature if we choose to use it.

This is the most important point of all, more important than any of the SWR stuff.

We are a posting community. Posting communities thrive when they permit diveristy of viewpoints, they shrivel up and die when they place tight limits on what can be said.

There are only two community members who have said forthrightly that the conventional SWR methodology is analytically invalid for purposes of determining SWRs. It is a larger number of posters that has expressed interest in hearing the arguments pro and con the new tool. But the majority of the community does not possess much confidence in the new tool as of today. That is an obvious reality.

If the majority has confidence in its ideas, it should be able to tolerate expressions of alternate points of views. All sorts of views are expressed on all sorts of topics at these boards. There is no good reason why the SWR issue should be so different.

If community members are permitted to hear all viewpoints, they will be able to figure things out for themselves over time. It doesn't even matter all that much which way the things ends up being resolved. It is the process of working towards resolution that is a healthy thing, that brings the community to life, that gives it confidence in itself.

There is nothing whatsoever bad about discussing the topic of SWRs freely, anymore than there would be in discussing any other Retire Early subject freely. If we achieve a consensus on only that, we are finished with the hardest part of the job. From that point forward, it is all downhill.

I believe that the conventional SWR methodology is analytically invalid and I am prepared to answer any questions that anyone puts to me as to why I think that. Does that make me a troll? It does not. It makes me a member of this posting community who wants to share some ideas with fellow community members that not many (if any) had considered prior to May 13, 2002. That's a good thing.

To normalize these discussions, we do not need to agree on whether the number is 4 or 2. What we need to agree on is that every member of this community has an equal right to put his or her opinion before the rest of the community. We all are entitled to say what we believe, and we all are entiled to respond to questions put to us as a result. No poster should ever be labled a troll solely because the content of his or her posts happens to express a viewpoint now supported only by a minority of the posting community.
 
***** wrote,

I appreciate you saying that, TH. I love the non-SWR stuff too, of course. I promised you at an earlier time that I would be distributing Advance Reader copies of my book here, and I will be, and when that happens, my hope is that the material in the book might generate a few thought-provoking non-SWR threads. Progress on that front is moving slower than I had anticipated (as it has at every single stage of the book production process), but we will get there one of these days.

<10 paragraphs of the same>

To normalize these discussions, we do not need to agree on whether the number is 4 or 2. What we need to agree on is that every member of this community has an equal right to put his or her opinion before the rest of the community. We all are entitled to say what we believe, and we all are entiled to respond to questions put to us as a result. No poster should ever be labled a troll solely because the content of his or her posts happens to express a viewpoint now supported only by a minority of the posting community.

*****,

This post is way too long and contains nothing of value to this forum. If you don't stop your "troll-like" behavior, I'm going to have to ask dory36 to terminate your posting priviliges.

Please keep your posts short and the answers to forum members questions directly on point. Anything less is disrespectful of your audience and will only hasten your exit.

intercst
 
This post is way too long and contains nothing of value to this forum. If you don't stop your "troll-like" behavior, I'm going to have to ask dory36 to terminate your posting priviliges.

I will of course abide by any rules that Dory36 announces as applicable to all posters who participate here.

As I understand the current policy, it is essentially a reasonable man standard. I do not find it reasonable for you and a few others to use the word "troll" in connection with my posting. It is distracting, it is inflammatory, and it is non-constructive.

I have raised serious questions about the validity of the conventional methodology studies. I have backed my claims with conceptual explanations of how the SWR concept works, and with references to a number of well-regarded experts who agree with the key claims that I have advanced. JWR1945 has put forward extensive statistical support for my claims.

The time for engaging in personal attacks is over. We have reached a stage of the proceedings where people should be taking a serious look at what the data says, and determining for themselves what is really the more realistic approach to determining SWRs. This is a money issue. For a community to deny posters here the ability to challange safety claims that purport to be data-based is to put the retirements of all those who use the forum as a learning resource at risk.

Your desire to have your personal SWR claims free from effective challenge on the board is not a reasonable one.

Please keep your posts short and the answers to forum members questions directly on point. Anything less is disrespectful of your audience and will only hasten your exit.

When I am asked questions that can be answered effectively with short posts, I will answer them with short posts. When I am asked questions that reveal a need for a discussion of context and background, I will provide that. My responsibility is to posters who are using the forum to learn. Those who ask questions are presumably willing to take the few minutes that it takes to read the longest of any posts that has ever been posted to this forum.

I show respect for my audience in the time that I take to answer as many reasonable questions as are put to me, and in the manner in which I phrase my responses--without engaging in ridicule of fellow community members or injecting distracting personal attacks into the proceedings.

The Retire Early community has learned a great deal about the realities of SWRs in the past two years. It will learn a great deal more about the realities of SWRs in the next two years. I hope that you play a big part in that learning process, intercst. That's the way that I would like to see this play out, and if you give a few moments of serious thought to the matter, I believe that you will conclude that that is the way that you would like to see it play out as well.
 
I show respect for my audience in the time that I take to answer as many reasonable questions as are put to me,
Click to expand...

No you don't! - I'm with Intercst - It's time for you to go! All you're doing is playing games.
 
No you don't! - I'm with Intercst - It's time for you [*****] to go! All you're doing is playing games.
Click to expand...

Do I hear a second for that motion?

intercst
 
intercst,

I think hocu must suffer delusions of grandeur. I couldn't believe anything else as I read the list of posters "his method" has enabled and his recounting of his acheivements. I find it sad, and I feel a bit guilty reading his rantings.

db
 
Re:  I second the motion.

*****, please leave the board and start your own.

-- Nords
 
Do I hear a second for that motion?

intercst
Click to expand...

Not from here. In fact, I'll take a walk if that happens.

I respect anyones right to express their opinion, even if its dumb, irrelevant or long winded. Or not in jibe with "everyone elses". Even if they choose not to answer peoples questions, if they're evasive, or anything else like that. Hell knows we have our share of "fan dancers" around here.

I havent heard ***** call anyone a name. Suggest anyone else's ideas are unfounded, dumb or anything else. In other words, his behavior is better than some.

I understand theres a history here. I understand some of the dialog has been frustrating to some. But you got there because you participated.
 
Re:  C'mon, guys.

Your words-to-answers ratio is so high (especially when you don't answer the questions!) that I skip over your posts. When this board implements M*'s "Ingore Poster" feature your name will be at the top of my list.
Click to expand...

I'm waiting for the filter also. But I'm getting so tired of skipping posts I haven't been bothering to read much of it any more, and I'm probably not the only one.

Dory - If your reading, I think that threads like this have a negative impact on the BB. I'm not sure if YABB has a ignore poster or not, but it would sure be nice to have way for the reader to limit this BS. I would not vote to block someone unless they were being truly obnoxious, but would like a way for a reader to ignore a thread or a poster.

In any case, I'll probably check back in a few weeks.

Wayne
 
I realize this is dory36's board, and he's free to give somebody the boot on a whim, so the right to free speech doesn't apply here. But ***** seems no worse to me than any street-corner preacher and just as easy to ignore.

I would find any sort of "speech cleansing" or outright ban much more offensive than an occasional boring monologue.

Bring us your obnoxious, your verbose, your tired worn-out cliche-mongers.... This is Virtual America after all.
 
I have not put up any thread-starters on this question sinced I began posting to this site.

I do not participate in SWR threads that do not bring up the question of the analytic validity or lack thereof of the conventional methodology studies. People who retain confidence in the conventional methodology studies have a right to engage in discussions about it without having to be exposed to Great SWR Debate type questions each time they do.

The only SWR threads in which I have posted are ones which bring up the question of analytic validity in some way. The question posed at the beginning of this thread did that. The question asked was: "Should we be worried?" My answer is, yes, we should be very worried. Not for the precise reason that the poster putting up the thread-starter had in mind. We should be worried because of data we have seen that shows the conventional methodology findings to be every bit as much in error as the Yahoo Quiz claims.

This thread sets forth a JWR1945 finding that the historical data reveals that the best stock allocation at today's valuation levels is zero. This finding is a direct contradiction a the conventional methodology finding that the optimal allocation is 74 percent stocks. Both claims are the product of analysis of the same data. It is not possible that both claims are equally valid. Seeing that the two findings are so far apart tells us that one of the researchers got something wrong.

People who use this board as an information resource have a right to expect that this matter be brought to resolution. People are going to suffer severe life setbacks if we do not go to the trouble to get this right.

Intercst has provided the download of the JWR1945 material from his website. I think it would be a good thing if he were to write an article about the JWR1945 findings, explaining how JWR1945 arrived at this numbers and explaining why he (intercst) thinks they are wrong.

An article about the JWR1945 findings on the front page of the intercst web site will cause more people to download the material. Those people may be able to help us as they will be coming to this from a fresh perspective. At any rate, the article will surely be read. If we have learned nothing else, we have learned that the community's desire to know more about SWRs is intense; no threads generate the level of participation as these ones do.

The community has a logic and a will and a heart of its own, separate from the logic and will and heart of any of its posters. The community has done important work over the course of the past two years. The work product we have produced is extraordinary. We are doing well, despite whatever little pothills we have encountered on our journey. We should keep on doing what we do.
 
***** writes,

I have not put up any thread-starters on this question sinced I began posting to this site.

I do not participate in SWR threads that do not bring up the question of the analytic validity or lack thereof of the conventional methodology studies. People who retain confidence in the conventional methodology studies have a right to engage in discussions about it without having to be exposed to Great SWR Debate type questions each time they do.

<5 paragrahs of the same>

The community has a logic and a will and a heart of its own, separate from the logic and will and heart of any of its posters. The community has done important work over the course of the past two years. The work product we have produced is extraordinary. We are doing well, despite whatever little pothills we have encountered on our journey. We should keep on doing what we do.

</snip>

This is your second warning *****.

This post is again way too long and contains nothing of value to this forum. You continue to be disrespectful of your audience's time and patience.

Are you trying to go 3 for 3 and add this forum to the list of places you're not welcome?

In response to your request about being reinstated at the Motley Fool board, I conducted a poll of the members of that forum to see if there was any support for your reinstatement. A full year after your departure people are still seathing at your long, windy posts and disrespectful antics.

The vote was three to one against your return.

http://boards.fool.com/Message.asp?mid=20801227

intercst
 
This is your second warning *****.

Please don't spend any more time on additional "warnings," intercst. Send Dory36 an e-mail expressing your concerns. There is certainly no harm done in requesting Dory36's input on the matter.
 
I thought of the perfect name for *****'s Grand new investment plan.

Call it Market Timing - then everybody will know what you mean!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Y
How to decide if you can live off investments or need to draw them down
2 3 4
Replies
93
Views
8K
pb4uski
pb4uski
A
Consider a 100% bond portfolio
2 3
Replies
50
Views
7K
WannabeRetired
W
Midpack
Vanguard PAS $
Replies
8
Views
611
Koolau
Koolau
P
Lump Sum & Invest Vs SWR
Replies
21
Views
1K
perez99
P
VanWinkle
"Comfort has a Cost"
2
Replies
49
Views
5K
audreyh1
audreyh1

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom