[i]...Early retirement plans typically fail for three reasons; 1) retiring before you've saved enough money to be financially-independent, 2) inadequate diversification of your retirement assets, and, 3) underestimating your annual living expenses in retirement..."[/i]

Fascinating analysis here:

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/rob_failure.html

Gn

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Retiring too early comes with more than financial hazards. It can put a heavy strain on a marriage too. As fate would have it, someone sent me this bit of "wise counsel" from a retired consultant named Dave. Read, learn and enjoy. :)

Best wishes,
Michael

Be More Considerate of the Little Woman

Dear friends:

Please be aware that as our wives age, it is harder for them to maintain the same quality of housekeeping as when they were younger. When you notice this, try not to yell at them. Some are over sensitive and there is nothing worse than an over sensitive woman. My name is Dave. Let me relate how I handled the situation with my wife, Martha. When I was laid off from my consulting job and took early retirement in April, it became necessary for Martha to get a full-time job, both for extra income and for the health insurance benefits we needed.

Shortly after she started working, I noticed she was beginning to show her age. I usually get home from the golf course about the same time she gets home from work, and although she knows how hungry I am, she rests an hour or so before she starts dinner. I don't yell at her. Instead, I tell her to take her time and just wake me when she gets dinner on the table. I generally have lunch in the Men's Grill at the club, so eating out is not reasonable. I'm ready for some home-cooked grub when I hit that door.

She used to do the dishes as soon as we finished eating. But now, it's not unusual for them to sit on the table for several hours after dinner. I do what I can by diplomatically reminding her several times each evening that they won't clean themselves. I know she appreciates this, as it does seem to motivate her to get them done before she goes to bed. I really think my old business as a consultant helps a lot. Telling people what they ought to do is one of my strong points. Also, now that she has gotten older, she does seem to get tired so much more quickly. Our washer and dryer are in the basement, and sometimes she says she just can't make another trip down those steps. I don't make a big issue of this, just as long as she finishes up the laundry the next evening. I'm willing to overlook her shortcomings in this area.

Unless I need something ironed to wear to the Monday lodge meeting, or to the Wednesday and Saturday poker club, or to Tuesday's and Thursday's bowling, I'll tell her to wait until the next evening to do the ironing. This gives her a little more time to do some of those odds and ends like shampooing the dog, vacuuming or dusting. If I had a really bad day on the course and it was wet and muddy, and my clubs are a mess, I let her clean them, you know, getting the grit off the grips and a little light Brillo on the club faces. Since my golf bag is heavy, I lift it out of the trunk for her. Women are delicate, have weak wrists and can't lift heavy stuff as good as men. But I had to tell her that I don't like to be wakened during my after-golf nap, so rather than bother me, she can put them back in the trunk when she's finished.

Another symptom of aging is complaining, I think. For example, she will say that it is difficult for her to find time to pay the monthly bills during her lunch hour. But boys, we take' em for better or worse, so I just smile and offer encouragement. I tell her to stretch it out over two or even three days. That way she won't have to rush so much. I also remind her that missing lunch completely now and then wouldn't hurt her any (if you know what I mean). I like to think tact is one of my strong points.

When doing simple jobs, she seems to think she needs more rest periods. She had to take a break when she was only half finished mowing the yard. I try not to make a scene. I'm a fair man. I tell her to fix herself a nice, big, cold glass of fresh squeezed lemonade and just sit for a while. And, as long as she is making one for herself, she may as well make one for me too, then take her break by my hammock. That way we can talk until I fall asleep. I know that I probably look like a saint in the way I support Martha, but I'm not saying that showing this much consideration is easy.

Many men will find it difficult, some will find it impossible! Nobody knows better than I do, how frustrating women get as they get older. However, guys, even if you just use a little more tact and less criticism of your aging wife because of this letter, I will consider that writing it was well worthwhile. After all, we are put on this earth to help each other.

Regards, Dave

EDITOR'S NOTE: Dave died suddenly. He was found with a Calloway extra long 50-inch Big Bertha Golf Driver rammed up his rear end with only two inches of grip showing. His wife Martha was arrested, but after the jury read this letter, they accepted her defense that he accidentally sat on it. She was released from custody on Friday.


Originally posted in thread: 52919

Mlebuf, that story was great! Interpersonal relations should rank up near the top of the list of what it takes to have a successful retirement.

As far as John Greaney's article referenced in the orignal post, I found it cruelly mean-spirited.

John

Originally posted in thread: 52919

You're right, the article about Rob is very mean-spirited. It's too bad the author feels the need to do this sort of thing.

Greg

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Sometimes the truth hurts.

In my opinion, it's too bad the father feels the need to do this sort of thing to his family.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

 
"Twice as much husband & half as much money"

Best wishes for safe & prosperous times!

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Gn, thanks for that link. I can't say much about Greaney or the guy he discusses.

Michael, thanks for sharing Dave's story. He was tireless in his efforts to help out his wife. We can all learn from this.

Paul

Originally posted in thread: 52919

(age 55) from a job I greatly disliked. I stayed because the money was good and my services and experience were in demand. I saved, invested and looked to the future. My company, on the other hand, was headed by an ever-changing cast of mostly incompetents that I had to deal with. They came and went; I stayed and saved. The company was profitable in spite of itself.

A new boy or girl wonder would arrive and almost immediately announce some new plan that I, with my years of service, knew wouldn't work as outlined. My suggestions usually went unheeded. The idea would fail, I would go on with my job, the "wonder" would leave after a few years to inflict damage on some other hapless organization and the cycle would repeat itself. In thirty five years I saw seventy three (that's right, seventy three) heads of divisions come and go. I kept track. It was crazy.

Retired for seven years now, I can say absolutely it was a great decision. Several decades of saving and planning have paid off with a solid financial present and future. We diversified our holdings in the diehard fashion and included commercial real estate in our portfolio.

I read stories of people who are happy with their jobs but many have or had unstatisfying jobs for various reasons. Magazines and other media don't do stories about them for obvious reasons. Nobody is going to say in print, "I hate my job and my boss is a jerk".

My wife and I fill our days with both mutual and individual interests at home, with family, traveling and volunteering. We hoped that this part of our lives would be good but it's even better than we dared wish. We realize we will face issues of health, etc. as these things are inevitable but for now we're enjoying every minute.

When, how and if to retire are determined solely by individual circumstances.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

That link is mean-spirited, hateful, degrading, but above all, it's true.

Rob, if you are reading this, please do the right thing and get back in the work force. Leaving a $100,000+ a year job at the age of 43 was financial suicide considering the size of your nest egg. According to the link, this was in 1996 and some of the ten best years of your earnings life have already past. During this time period you could have been promoted to more senior level manager positions, vice-president posts, etc. You could have had a million dollar nest egg if you would have worked for 10 more years, saved $25,000 a year and earned 7% a year. Don't forget, that an asset allocation of 50/50 between 96-06 would have allowed you to gain an tremendous amount in what ended up being one of the greatest bull markets.

There's also the possibility that your salary would have grown by at least 4% a year while your 401(k) contributions would have been matched by Ernst & Young's generous 401(k) match.

You can still save the ship from sinking, but you're running out of time. From that link, it appears that you only have about $300,000 left. Let's assume that both of your boys go to a state college and that runs them $10,000 a year plus living expenses. How are you going to be able to support them? Will they have to borrow massive amounts to pay for school? What about leaving a legacy to your wife and kids when you're gone? Is anything going to be left in 10 years, let alone at the time of your death?

You can still be an author, although not in your current state. You need to get your butt back in the work force (even if it's only at 60-75% of what you were making in '96) and start your financial life over again. The way I see it, you have another book coming out and it's going to be about one of two things. How you failed in retirement or how you initially failed in early retirement, got back on your feet, and turned things around.

If you had just kept an allocation of 50/50 or even 40/60 ten years ago while saving hard, you would be a millionaire at this point. Instead, people are writing mean things about you on the internet.

Please, do the right thing for your family. They'll appreciate you for it.

Best Wishes,

John

Originally posted in thread: 52919

.
True or not, using a real person's name in an article of the kind Mr. Greaney wrote seems mean-spirited. The article says more about the character of the author than the subject. Reminds me of schoolyard bullying. I recommend a rewrite, removing the name used as an example, as it only serves as a distraction in the articele.

John

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I think Greaney is still steaming because Rob exposed him and his 4% SWR. He gave bad advice and attempts to change the spotlight off of his own recklessness. What a shame, quite petty.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

John,
You seem like a nice guy, but please, Rob and his family are none of your, mine, Jasons or Greaneys business.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

No one has played PI on Rob's life.

Everything we know about Rob is what he personally revealed to us on a public forum.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Earnabuck,

I'd tend to agree with you more if Rob didn't volunteer these details. I don't think anyone has done any detective work or tried to snoop around for information on Rob that Rob himself hasn't already disclosed.

Best,

John

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I think Rob has put his story (with details) out there for the whole world to see, so in a sense it is our business. I don't see it as mean spirited, especially given the bad blood between those two, I think they've both taken cheap shots at each other.

I've just never really believed Rob's story totally, no one retires in their 40's with 2 kids with just $400,000. He either isn't telling the whole truth, counting on an inheritance, has a working wife with a very good income, or planning at some time to go back to work.

I think Greaney's website is full of excellent, specific information, while Rob's website is like watching Mary Poppins.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

In talking investments and retirement w/o going into the personal such as telling someone:
"You need to get your butt back in the work force "


Screw that, who the hell are you to tell Rob what he needs to do.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

for telling someone they are acting irresponsibly. To behave recklessly with regards to your life is one thing - but it's quite another when you have to support a family

Originally posted in thread: 52919

The first line of the article is:
"This article was posted September 1, 2006."

How can you guys waste time reading stuff by someone who doesn't even know how to read a calender?

Regards.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I am 56. I retired 2 years ago at age 54. Tomorrow I go back to work. I don't need the money. I am just bored. For 2 years retirement was fun, but now I am bored with it. What I did for two years:

I traveled a lot.

I went to India and meditated for two months.

I took art classes and discovered I didn't have much talent.

I took creative writing classes and learned that even though most people who like to read think they want to write a book, the truth is that writing is very very hard work.

I joined the YMCA and got in shape, which I plan to continue with, but that only takes a few hours a week.

I read, went to movies, had lunch with friends, wrote lots of stuff like this on the internet.

And so on.

Retirement was fun, but I am tired of it. I have realized that one of the most fun and creative things I ever did was write software, which I did for a living for 30 years. Tomorrow I go back to work.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

congrats for being able to do what you want.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I agree with brooklyn, congratulations on your own freedom. Your story illustrated a great point that what is right for one, may not be right for others.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

.
I am a long way off retirement, but came across this piece of advice the other day by Stan Hinden - "Whatever you decide to do in retirement, your plan should have one main objective: to keep yourself mentally and physically active and in close contact with other people. That is the way to achieve a successful retirement".

This sounds like wise advice that I need to remember in 20+ years.

Robert

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Earnabuck,

Rob is free to dismiss my advice as complete and utter garbage if he wishes to. I am certainly not an expert(yet) in personal finance, but I do know a thing or two about the subject. I am also capable of doing simple math, and I can tell you that a nest egg of $300,000 won't last someone in his mid 50's with a wife and two kids.

I think most posters would agree with my advice, but then again I might be 100% wrong.

John

Originally posted in thread: 52919

By my count Rob has about 10 years till he can start to draw SS, and hey if you watch for sales at the supermarket, you can get canned tuna pretty cheap. Money isn't everything. But seriously, why on earth would someone advertise their personal life the way he has, I mean he's created his own personal "Truman Show". It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.


Jeff

Originally posted in thread: 52919

"God wants me to figure out what I need to do to retire early. God wants me to figure out what I need to do to be able to spend my time doing fulfilling work. God wants me to figure out what I need to do so that I can afford to take my boys to Disney World."

There's a story that goes like this. I'm sure many of you have heard it before (and could probably tell it better than I.)

There was a massive flood in a town and one man managed to make it on top of his roof. Luckily, a boat came on by, but the man said "if its God's will to save me he'll save me!" Next, a helicopter came by. Again, the man said if God wanted to save him he would. Eventually, the man dies.

The man gets to heaven and he asks "God, why didn't you save me?" God says "I sent both a boat and a hellicopter for you!"

I don't believe in a god, but it's a good parable anyway. What Rob is saying would be the same thing as saying "If god wants me to have money I'll win the lottery!"

I never understood the animosity towards hocus before. Now I understand.

In conclusion:

Dude, get a freakin job so you can take your kids to Disney World. How can you be so selfish?

Jay

Originally posted in thread: 52919

From that link, it appears that you only have about $300,000 left.

Over the past four years, I've seen thousands of references to my personal financial circumstances put forward by people seeking to defend the conventional methodology safe withdrawal rate studies (I am the person who discovered the analytical errors in those studies, which have since been written about by people like Bill Bernstein, Scott Burns, Peter Ponzo ("Gummy"), Raddr (owner of the Raddr-Pages.com site), and John Walter Russell (he posts here as "JWR1945"). It's theoretically possible that there were one or two posted somewhere that stated the facts with a reasonable amount of accuracy, John. There have been too many posts of this nature put forward for me to have studied each of them carefully. All that I can say with certainty is that I don't recall ever having seen one.

Rob

Originally posted in thread: 52919

You're right, the article about Rob is very mean-spirited. It's too bad the author feels the need to do this sort of thing.

I strongly agree with you, Gregory.

An important point that is too often overlooked is that it is not bad just for me. It is bad for the author of the words, it is bad for the people encouraging the author to put up those sorts of words, and it is bad for all the people in the discussion-board communities who are put in a position of either having to be silent in the face of such words or to engage in discussions of articles containing such words. It is degrading to all human beings that we be put in circumstances in which we need to get involved in this sort of thing. That sort of article does not belong at a site that purports to deal with personal finance questions.

If you go to the Acknowledgments page of my book Passion Saving, you will see that the first name mentioned on that page is the name "John Greaney." I owe a debt to John because of things I learned about early retirement from him in earlier days. I also owe a debt to him because he founded a Motley Fool board on early retirement which was for a time the most exciting board on Planet Internet. I enjoyed a lot of good times with him. For a number of years, he was one of the biggest fans of my writing on the face of Planet Earth. He wrote in a review of a report that I published in 2000 that, if I ever wrote a book on the topic of early retirement, it was certain to become the Bible of the early retirement movement. So he is capable of producing work a lot better than the work that he has been producing in recent years.

His personal failings are not board business. That stuff is for him to work out on his own time and on his own dime. It does become board business, though, when people who purport to be friends of his post links to this sort of article to this site. It is an act of cruelty to this human being for these sorts of links to be posted. It delays the day when he will get about making the changes that he needs to make.

I did what a true friend does. I told John the facts of life, and I implored him to take a path other than the one he has elected to take. I have said from the first day that his safe withdrawal rate study has value. It is a conventional methodology study, and the conventional methodology studies are analytically invalid for purposes of determining SWRs. But the same Bill Bernstein who says that anyone giving thought to using a conventional methodology study to plan a retirement would be well-advised to "FuhGedDaBouDit!" also says that the conventional methodology studies were "breakthrough research" for what they taught us about how to invest for the long term. Bernstein has been proven correct on both counts many times over.

Responsible people need to step forward and say responsible things. There are people today entering searches in Google and coming up with conventional methodology SWR studies, studies that will in all likelihood cause them to suffer busted retirements in days to come. Something like that should never happen.

We are not talking about a matter of subjective personal opinion here. We are talking about a mathematical calculation. With mathematical calculations, there are right and wrong answers.

Rob

Originally posted in thread: 52919

What?

Originally posted in thread: 52919

to documentation of Rob's previous statements. What we know about Rob is what he has posted and I see little to suggest that he would be a good role model or one who could give much valid advice regarding early retirement.

OTOH, I am not sure Rob intends for his "advice" to be taken seriously. He likes to challenge the conventional wisdom (lots of posts with titles like "work" is not a four letter word) and get reactions.

I looked at the roster of posters at Greaney's site sorted by number of posts. Rob has 2626 as of this morning. A thousand more than anyone else including Mr. Greaney.

Greaney is an interesting early retiree. Retired at 38 after years as a professional engineer with a dilbertesque career in a cubicle. He had several million dollars accumulated at the time and did his withdrawal study to assure himself it was enough. From what he has said in posts at his website he lives on much less than a 4% withdrawal. He is apparently sort of a hero at the Motley Fool website. Hocus has challenged him by claiming to have retired early with 1/10th the assets, poor assett allocation, and with dependents. I think the early posting of this page reflects Greaney's personality. Retired early and probably had his workdone early when he will still a cubicle dweller.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I don't see it as mean spirited, especially given the bad blood between those two, I think they've both taken cheap shots at each other.

There is no bad blood on my side toward Greaney or anyone else, Allan. Never once have I taken a cheap shot at him or at any other fellow community member (I have told some jokes in an effort to relieve the tension, but never in a mean-spirited way, and I have spent huge amounts of time trying to help community members who were upset to learn about the error that Greaney made in his study to understand the need for him to correct it). If I am true to myself, I never will.

I have said that he got the number wrong in his study and that the error is likely to result in hundreds of thousands of busted retirements in days to come. That's a matter of objective fact. I do not say that the error was intentional. I believe it was a mistake. But it is a mistake that I brought to Greaney's attention in May 2002. It's a mistake that should have been corrrected a long, long, long, long, long, long time ago. It is Greaney's failure to correct the mistake (and the tactics that he has employed to block civil and reasoned discussion of the mistake at half a dozen discussion-board communities), not the mistake itself, that reflects poorly on him.

Rob

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Rob's website is like watching Mary Poppins.

I understand that you intend this as a dig, Allan. I don't really hear it that way, though. My view is that many sites in the personal finance area are far too stuffy. Mary Poppins is the voice of common sense in comparison to some of the oh-so-grave-and-oh-so-self-important voices being heard on Planet Internet today.

I don't include Greaney's site in that group. Greaney's site has some uniquely valuable stuff in it. On the day I discovered his site, I printed out every article and put them all in one of my famous black binders. Both of his Soapbox.com reports were based on material at his site and I gave them both five-star reviews. Even the SWR study would have value if it were corrected to say that the 4 percent number is the Historical Surviving Withdrawal Rate and not the Safe Withdrawal Rate.

Rob

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Retirement was fun, but I am tired of it.

That's a fantastic, life-affirming post, tc.

I wrote a report called Secrets of Retiring Early back in the summer of 2000 that was the #1 best-seller in the history of the Soapbox.com site. When you do something like that, you get lots of feedback from readers that helps you find out where people's head really are at.

The most common theme in e-mails to me was -- "Bless you, Rob, for giving advice on how to retire early without saying that I need to be a vegatable for the remainder of my days if I take that course." People love the idea of financial freedom. People hate the idea of getting about the business of preparing to die at age 40.

When you add the word "early" to the word "retirement," you change the concept in dramatic ways. In the old days, retirement was something you did because you were too old and sick to work anymore. Today, many middle-class people earn enough to be able to retire to more fulfilling lives rather than to dead ones. It's a very exciting business.

You played it precisely right, in my view. You are obviously not addicted to work because you took several years to do other things. But you are also able to see the fun and challenge and self-growth that is as much an important part of the work experience as the bad stuff that causes some of us to want to attain financial freedom long before we hit our 65th birthday.

Rob

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Another 300 post thread with 250 of them by Rob to look forward to. Rob, believe me, everyone here knows your thoughts on the SWR and "valuations matter" issues, I could repeat them myself. Why do you have to continue to inundate this site with your viewpoints on these two issues? If you haven't convinced the world by now, and it is obvious you haven't, you never will. Please, let it go!

Allan

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Retired at 38 after years as a professional engineer with a dilbertesque career in a cubicle. He had several million dollars accumulated at the time and did his withdrawal study to assure himself it was enough.

That's incorrect, Jason.

I don't know the precise numbers, but I am certain that Greaney did not have "several million dollars accumulated" at the time he handed in his resignation. My recollection is that he had about $500,000.

He earned a lot more in the stock market in the years following. That was luck. He didn't invest in index funds. He put his money in a few stocks that happened to have incredible returns in the years that followed (Dell was one). He happened to retire in the middle of the longest and strongest bull market in U.S. history. Had stocks gone dramatically the other way, he could well have been busted by today.

There are always going to be some people who get lucky in a wild bull market. To say that his approach to early retirement is "safe" is like saying that it is safe to put your entire life savings on black at the roulette table and hope and wish and pray and dream that it pays off.

It could pay off. But the fact that it pays off does not retroactively make it safe to do something like that. Greany's approach is a get-rich-quick scheme. He's telling people to put just about everything in a high-risk asset class and hope that it works out. There have been lots of cases in which that sort of thing has worked out in recent years. There are also lots of reasons for believing that this reckless approach is likely to stop working out in the near future.

Stock are a great asset class for the long-term investor. People who offer the sort of advice that Greaney offers give stocks a bad name. It's these reckless sorts of approaches that cause many middle-class people to swear off stocks for life. I am a Stock Guy and I am a Retire Early guy, but I make an effort to disassociate myself from the Greaney approach to stock investing and from the Greaney approach to early retirement at every opportunity that comes up.

There are people who like his approach. Nothing could be more clear. But that sort of thing is not for me. No way, no how. (That's not to say that I don't think that he has put forward valuable insights -- I think he has, and I have on numerous occasions pointed people to them in my writings and will of course continue to do so.)

Rob

Originally posted in thread: 52919

This story shows the underlying problem of the financial planning industry: just about anyone can call themseleves whatever they want and sell bad advice with a wink and a nod from industry & govt. watchdogs as well as professional organizations.

Rob Bennett is a grown up and knows what has to be done - get a job.

Adrian
anenu@tampabay.rr.com

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Dude, get a freakin job so you can take your kids to Disney World.

It's a fact that I cannot afford to take my two boys to Disney World this year. It is also a fact that I have been able to afford two days at the Sesame Place water park and a week at the Cape May beach town.

My boys have some other good things going on in their lives that they wouldn't have had if I had remained at the six-figure consulting job a few more years. They have their dad sharing lunch with them as well as dinner each day. And, when they ask me what sort of work I do, I can get excited about it and tell them about the amazing saving and investing and career-growth insights we have developed at the Financial Freedom Community boards that I built (along with hundreds of fine people who share my interest in the topic of early retirement). That sends a message. I would like to see them seek work that they love, not just work that pays the bills. I think it's a bit hypocritical to tell them that that is the right thing for them to do while not paying any heed to the advice myself.

There's a section in the last chapter of Passion Saving in which I discuss the pros and cons to my family of the decision I made to leave a high-paying job when I had accumulated the amount of savings needed to generate sufficient annual earnings to cover all of my family's essential costs of living (my net worth today is higher than it has ever been before, and has grown in every year since I handed in my resignation from the corporate job). There are pros and cons. I don't say that it would be wrong for someone else to have taken it the other way. I remain confident, though, that I made the right decision for me and for my family, and that is what I am called on to do.

Before I put together my Passion Saving plan, I had zero savings at age 35. Not too long after I found motivation in the idea of saving enough so that I could afford to responsibly make the move to doing more meaningful work, I found myself saving close to $100,000 per year. Are the people saying that I would be better off never having developed the Passion Saving approach saying that I would be better off at age 50 with zero savings? That's where many, many people are, and I have every reason to believe that that's roughly where I would be today had I listened to this it's-only-dollar-bills-that-matter advice.

I live an extremely rich life today. I'd like to have more money, but who wouldn't? The amount of money I have in my possession is not among my top ten concerns today. How many of those saying that I was wrong to switch to an approach to money management that made my life better in about 500 different ways can say the same?

Rob

Originally posted in thread: 52919

..... via exhaustive internet posting in reality appears to be part of a larger set of chronic job-avoidance skills, and most certainly is not a satisfactory excuse for dereliction of both parental and spousal responsibilities.


TnGuy

Originally posted in thread: 52919

for passing up a higher-income job with more hours for a lower-income job with less hours. However, to absolve from work completely when you are not financially independent is irresponsible.

Wishing you can be financially independent and actually being financially independent are two different things.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

From what I read here, I would guess that Rob will eventually run out of money and have to go back to work. However, I can see his point of view. None of us know when we will die. A friend of mine died last month at the age of 56. I am glad he did some of the things he wanted to do in the last year of his life, rather than working extra hard at a boring job so he would have plenty of money in his 80's.

So far as the issue of a father's responsibilities, my father made plenty of money and provided for us, which I am greatful for. He didn't have much time to spend with us as we grew up though. It is hard to say which is more important.

I disagree with lots of the ideas hocus has posted. If that were all a person trying to learn about early retirement were to read, it would be a problem. Fortunatly there are plenty of other people who can counter his arguements. Anyone who is bored with is posts can skip them.

It takes all kinds. Maybe hocus adds some flavor to the mix.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I agree there is a balance between making money and spending time with family/friends/spouses and just living a quality life. Money certainly isn't everything. And I really have no problem with what Rob's done for himself. I wouldn't do it his way, but that's his business.

The problem I have is that Rob is putting himself out to the general public as a financial "expert", questioning the real experts like Bernstein and Scott Burns, sort of publishing a book, touting his blog, his websites, etc. If he were just anyone else here stating an opinion and that was it, no problem. But he really sells himself as an expert. I think Adrian hit the nail on the head.

Allan

Originally posted in thread: 52919

To quit your job so you can post 12 hrs a day on the internet.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

tell them about the amazing saving and investing and career-growth insights we have developed at the Financial Freedom Community boards that I built

hocus could you please name the message boards that you have built? It is my understanding that you have not done this. Please correct me if I am wrong by naming the boards that you have built.

There is nothing untruthfull in the post. If there is hocus is welcome to correct it. Since hocus has posted this information himself I think it is fair game. hocus claims 4% SWR is unsafe and then uses a 10% rate for himself?

hocus is trying to wright books that give financial advice when he is not qualified. He is paying publications to quote him as a "financial expert". He is trying to publish a book recommending people retire early with $400,000 and withdral far too much. Then he argues that 4% SWR is reckless. I think it is irresponsible to try and mislead investors. Why is it so objectionable for others to question what hocus has posted in his book, on websites and articles?

Good Luck,

Mike

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Apparently this refers to a bunch of discussion boards on various sites that Rob participates in. There may be a forum or two he "created", but most he did not. He lists the Diehard board on the list.

Financial Freedom Community

Originally posted in thread: 52919

There is nothing untruthfull in the post. If there is hocus is welcome to correct it.

I have noticed that Rob has posted numerous times in this thread, and he doesn't appear to disagree with anything posted. He is apparently using the Chewbacca Defense.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Is there some reason why this nonsense has to be ported over to M*??? Aren't there enough discussion forums for hocus and his trolls to play on?

Howie

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Rob is nonspecific about how his personal financial situation is misreported by Greaney. Greaney's page has links to statements made by Rob and seems to be a good faith effort to analyze what Rob has said.

Rob insists that Greaney's study and other "conventional methodology" studies are wrong. I thought he might have better luck getting the Authors of the Trinity Study to change their results. link to last year's M* conversation So I gave him their email addresses. He was going to be in contact with them in "days to come." A year has passed and no retraction has been published as far as I know. I have my own doubts about the sustainability of an inflation adjusted 4% withdrawal from a s&p/ fixed income portfolio but I can't blame people for using the available data. Interestingly, Rob writes approvingly of a 4% withdrawal rate in his book.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

When I quit working in 1994, I had a portfolio of $500k. The asset allocation was 30% fixed income and 70% equities invested in about 20 stocks. I averaged about $18,000/yr in annual living expenses in the five years preceding my retirement.

Since I rejected the tenets of Hocomania and didn't "sell all my stock in 1996" my portfolio grew to several million dollars by 1999. Most of the growth in excess of the S&P500 return came from my LTB&H investments in Pfizer and Dell. Even if these two companies went bankrupt today, I would still be meeting my annual living expenses with less than a 4% withdrawal from the remaining portfolio.

link

So Greaney is single and managed to accumulate several million dollars for a secure retirement. Rob has millions less and dependents. I everyone is free to choose their own experts, lol.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Rob's plan to spend more time with his kids is certainly a noble one. If he had invested a little more time into "plan B", it might have worked out a bit better, perhaps working part time, before chucking the job. Personally I see nothing wrong with kids not being bathed in material goods and services. And time is more important than money, just ask any elderly person. That said, it is hard to reconcile his personal story with the investement advice he espouses.
I hate to admit it, but hocus brings out the worst in me ( and some others as well ). He reminds me of one of those lifesize inflateable clown "ballons" I had as a child. You'd step on it's feet, and wack the tar out of it, and it would go down and spring back up again ready for the next wack. Fun at first, but it would get old after a while.



Jeff

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Seriously, I'm baffled that people will continue to endlessly discuss this person.

And, why is it on the Diehards board?

In the future can people put a (hocus) tag (kind of like an OT tag on off topic posts) on the header for these posts so I won't waste another second of my life inadvertently reading about this bizarre person's bizarre approach to life and finances.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I rarely post on hocus'd threads, however I would like to clear up a few misconceptions. Rob has a way of skewing the the truth (to put it politely). I will only point out a couple of those instances.

There is no bad blood on my side toward Greaney or anyone else, Allan. Never once have I taken a cheap shot at him or at any other fellow community member(I have told some jokes in an effort to relieve the tension, but never in a mean-spirited way

This is completely fallacious. Rob has often resorted to personal attacks, sometimes making quite crude and inappropriate comments. He particularly attacks women, including me. Being called a "snarling attack dog" is not just a joke. He is careful here, but elsewhere he is is perfectly happy to make degrading attacks that border on juvenile. They aren't just "jokes".

Here's and example of completely misquoting me on his blog:

"Where the arrete post went off the rails was in its suggestion that all withdrawal rates between 2 percent and 5 percent are equally safe. Arrete is one of the lead Greaney supporters in our community and she has never acknowledged that Greaney got the number wrong in his study. So it appears that she feels compelled to suggest that there is no way of knowing whether a 2 percent withdrawal is any safer than a 5 percent withdrawal."

I never said any such thing. The 2-5 percent was taken from page 234 in 4 Pillars. By the way, several of us have asked him to leave us alone on his blog. No go. This is the response I got when I asked several times not to have my screen name "arrete" associated with his blog. LINK

I think this has to be characterized as mean-spirited. Also from Rob's blog:

"I think it would be fair to describe John Greaney as the most abusive poster in the history of the internet."

In all, Rob can be very nasty when he wants to. He is trying to conceal that on this board, but those of us who have known him for years retain the scars of twisted meanings and malicious attacks.

I will not respond to any post directed at me by Rob because I already know he will either play the injured innocent, pretend we're friends, or twist my words.

Kathy

Originally posted in thread: 52919

pretend we're friends

Kathy and I had friendly relations for years prior to the day when I reported what Bill Bernstein said in his book about safe withdrawal rates.

I see no reason why Bill Bernstein's accurate reporting (we have done a lot of work checking out his claims over the past four years) of what the historical data says about SWRs should cause me not to be friends with her. She is of course free to feel as she pleases about me.

My friendships are not dependent on what the individual who I have come to think of as a friend believes about safe withdrawal rates or any other investing topic.

Rob

Originally posted in thread: 52919

ZZZzzzzzzzzz............

RM

Originally posted in thread: 52919

This whole discussion reminds me of a short story I read long ago. Our protagonist was a British ex-pat who retired at a young age to a Tuscan village, in full knowledge that he would run out of money before he ran out of time. His solution was to be suicide. The narrator visits the village several years later to find his tomb, and, instead finds him, begging on a corner for scraps. Turns out he did not have the stomach to do the deadly deed.

Anyone have a clue to the author? (Maupassant, Hemingway, Bradbury are possibilities). I'd like to read it again

--G

Originally posted in thread: 52919

In post #39, Allan said,

"The problem I have is that Rob is putting himself out to the general public as a financial "expert", questioning the real experts like Bernstein and Scott Burns, sort of publishing a book, touting his blog, his websites, etc."

Perhaps Allan can explain how W. Bernstein became a "financial expert", considering that he is a medical doctor by training and education. Scott Burns has a Bachelors degree in biology and has been a financial columnist for about 20 years. How did he get his "expert" status?

I suspect the answer to both is that their investing style is in accordance with Allans. Ipso facto, they are experts.

Regards,
Russ

Originally posted in thread: 52919

One way was to write books and columns that were actually published and bought and read by a great many of people and generally accepted by others as knowing what they are talking about.

I don't see that Rob gets any kind of acceptance of his ideas on these forums, which by comparison is a very small group of people.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

People tend to respect the opinions of those who have been sucessful at their chosen profession, a bit more than those who have been well, less sucessful. I would wager that both Dr. Bernstein and Scott Burns are reasonably successful in their chosen professions, as authors, and in regards to personal finances. While I certainly don't take everything they say as gospel ( or anyone else's opinion for that matter ), or even understand some of it, I would tend to give them some credence based on rep alone. Of course, if "sucess" is measured by output of blovated verbiage, hocus wins hands down. What would he do without the internet? Best not to think about it.


Jeff

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Though a vanity publisher. Maybe he is successful in his own view. I think he might say that he has not been able to get a commercial publisher because they are reluctant to challenge the "conventional methodology: of investing.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

You gotta be kidding. With all the abuse Rob has taken both on here and from the intercst bunch, you have the nerve to come crying about that? Wow.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I think he might say that he has not been able to get a commercial publisher because they are reluctant to challenge the "conventional methodology: of investing.

More likely they can't recognize true genious when they see it, and instead keep publishing that tripe put out by Bogle,Bernstein,et. al.



Jeff

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Have you read it? If so, what were your impressions of it? If not, how can you comment on it?

arrete

Originally posted in thread: 52919

I get it. It was a joke.

Kathy

Originally posted in thread: 52919

link

some pretty amusing comments I thought

Originally posted in thread: 52919

"There's a section in the last chapter of Passion Saving in which I discuss the pros and cons to my family of the decision I made to leave a high-paying job...
"There are pros and cons..
"I remain confident, though, that I made the right decision for me..."

Rob, did you ever consider that your family may want you to go back to work so they don't have to hear endlessly how one can retire early?
Any Diehards attempting to follow Rob's path can do so if they follow Passsion Saving at your local Amazon or somewhere. That's PASSION SAVING.

Originally posted in thread: 52919

Hi,
You have to admit that Rob is amazing. He has managed to become the center of attention. I don't for a moment believe his story or his investing views, but he is getting his 15 minutes of fame.

He reminds me of a cartoon I saw in the New Yorker. It showed two dogs with one using a computer. The dog using the computer said, "On the internet, nobody knows you are a dog." Best Wishes.

Joe

Originally posted in thread: 52919

jason375 link: I briefly perused quotes by author and reader's comments about his "book".

The "book" is nothing more than a piata begging to be smacked. The "book" seems to be filled with random musings and rants, and written by an author consumed to lead others down a dead-end path along with their family and children. If a person spent as much time with their children as being spent posting gibberish on the internet, then I could at least see the argument of quitting one's job and living a basic survival lifestyle.

Originally posted in thread: 52919