I am new to this forum.  I have some familarity with Vanguard but no indepth knowledge of the best performing funds.  I have about $175,000 to invest, sitting in the PMM fund at the moment.  I came across Dan Wiener's newsletter and would like to know what those on this board think of his advice?  Do some here follow his sample portfolios?  Has he offered good advice over the years?  Is a subscription to his newsletter worth $99/year?  Can i do just as well on my own with the advice offered here, or on the Boglehead board, and with advice from the trade rags?  Any advice is appreciated.  Thanks.

Vanbookie

Do some here follow his sample portfolios?  Has he offered good advice over the years?  Is a subscription to his newsletter worth $99/year?  Can i do just as well on my own with the advice offered here, or on the Boglehead board, and with advice from the trade rags? 

[/quote]

Welsome to the forum.  Here are my best answer to your questions.

1.  Many posters loosely follow his portfolios.  The biggest problem is that many of the funds in his portfolios are closed, or have high minimums.  Therefore, it is becomeing more and more difficult to replicate his portfolios without buying non-Vanguard funds.

2.  I subscribe.  I think the newsletter may be worth $99 a year if you use actively managed funds in a portfolio.  You get some insights in to the thinking of fund managers.  However, many respected posters disagree.  Probably the best thing to do is get a trial subscription.  I think you can get your money back if you cancel within 6 months.

3.  If you read a few select books on the Diehard reading list, you could probably assemble a portfolio as good as, or better than Dan Wiener's.

Petrocelli

There have been hundreds of posts on Dan Wiener.  He is loved by some and hated by many. 

Most of the detractors think that there are no newsletters worth the cost... and that you can set up a portfolio just as good (maybe better) than the Dan Wiener portfolio based on advice offered here for free.

We are subscribers to the newsletter and think his service is worth the price.  He does not trade too often but it is difficult to follow his model exactly because many of the funds are closed.  Basically, his advice costs the price of a subscription, which for a portfolio of $175K, is an added 0.05%.  My advice would be to subscribe, see it if is worthwhile to you and if not use his money-back guarantee if you cancel within the first 6 months.

Stats

Hi Vanbookie,

I have been a subscriber to Wieners newsletter for about  15 years and I think it is well worth the money. I don't follow his portfolios,  but I use his information to set my own. It has lots of good information in it every month, plus he has a hotline report every week. He has a lot of good interviews with the Vanguard managers. He posts prices and performance information every month on every Vanguard fund.

If you are inerested, I would suggest you subscribe and if you don't like  it within the first six months they will refund your money.Hope this helps.

I came across Dan Wiener's newsletter and would like to know what those on this board think of his advice?  Do some here follow his sample portfolios?  Has he offered good advice over the years?  Is a subscription to his newsletter worth $99/year?  Can i do just as well on my own with the advice offered here, or on the Boglehead board, and with advice from the trade rags?  Any advice is appreciated.  Thanks.

[/quote]

I don't subscribe to his newsletter nor feel the need to do so.  I read a few good books and have developed my own portfolio with which I am comfortable.

Some of Dan Wiener's advertisements have been of the over-sensationalized "Get Rich Quick" variety, which I neither believe nor trust.

- Tom

Consider yourself lucky Vanbookie.  Before your post, there were a scant 10 posts in 5 separate conversations in the previous 24 hours at this forum.  After your post, you got 4 replies within about 2 hours.  Evidently, you asked the right question.

 Andy

I can't believe that the name Dan Wiener's  keep coming up on this forum. But I should as he advertise and market his newsletters to a great extent. He must as his renewal rate is small. Who is Dan's Weiner? He is a literary genius without any financial graduate college coeducational who took advantage of Vanguard's success in the mutual funds field and even tried to adopt its trade-name. He lost his law-suit. He does write sweet enticing words of seduction for the searching investors.

Only about 20% of active funds can beat comparative index benchmark analyized many time by many with their research. Dan started the newsletter picking Vanguard's active funds that could beat the index by 2 to 3%. He was lucky with his start in 1999 with a pick of VGCHX which continued successfully  for 5 to 6 years. And now today it is past history. His comparative Index Portfolio is beating his renowned and promotional  Growth Portfolio Fund. Vanguard active funds are not the superior market beaters as they were 10 years ago. This week Dan gave up on VGHCX after 18 years and advise his clients to decrease its holdings 1/2 and switch it to another one of his hopeful fund to increase his now Growth Portfolio below Index return. But where is he going to find the magic funds among Vanguard active funds.  Vanguard's only mutual fund within the upper 5% of it comparative rated funds is VGMPX and has been for 10 years, A good pick for a small percentage of ones portfolio, but Dan's says it too volatile for his suggestion. Dan has not been a high International allotter but is saying to up International allottment now.

The balance fund VWELX is in its upper !0%. Other funds in 10 to 20% are VDIGX, VPMCX, and VTRIX.  Funds from 20 to 30% are NAESX, VEIPX, VGEQX, VHCOX, and VWIGX.  Weiner doesn't have many choices and chances to be beat a well chosen 4 to 6 index portfolio today.

So Vanbookie forget Weiners's newsletter, buy a couple suggested books and use index;s funds  to get the market gifted return. An occasional active fund like CGMFC or JORNX (out-performers for 5 years) can boast your index porfolio slightly to get Dan's promised  2 to 3%. But just a simple Index Portfolio is better choice for the majority.

Even Stats with his promotional suggestion of Weiner is not a close followers with his dividend stock holdings, his many hours picks to go with a few of Dan's suggestion. And those  few are easy to find with Morningstar. Save the payment to Dan.

Macfield 

This is a Vanguard (subject) website and Dan Weiners newsletter deals with Vanguard funds. It seems only natural that his name would pop up here.

A subscriber with no strong opinion either way about his newsletter. Good for sum, not for others. 

nero 

You could do worse, no doubt about it.  As near as I can tell all of Wiener's suggested portfolios are reasonable ways to invest.  I do not nor have I ever subscribed to the newsletter, or even read a copy. 

 

Consider yourself lucky Vanbookie.  Before your post, there were a scant 10 posts in 5 separate conversations in the previous 24 hours at this forum.  After your post, you got 4 replies within about 2 hours.  Evidently, you asked the right question.

 Andy

[/quote]

Make that 5, including your "insightful" post.  Always a thrill for us poor folk when you come back to the  old neighborhood to spread your pearls of wisdom.

I can't believe that the name Dan Wiener's  keep coming up on this forum. But I should as he advertise and market his newsletters to a great extent. He must as his renewal rate is small. Who is Dan's Weiner? He is a literary genius without any financial graduate college coeducational who took advantage of Vanguard's success in the mutual funds field and even tried to adopt its trade-name. He lost his law-suit. He does write sweet enticing words of seduction for the searching investors.

Only about 20% of active funds can beat comparative index benchmark analyized many time by many with their research. Dan started the newsletter picking Vanguard's active funds that could beat the index by 2 to 3%. He was lucky with his start in 1999 with a pick of VGCHX which continued successfully  for 5 to 6 years. And now today it is past history. His comparative Index Portfolio is beating his renowned and promotional  Growth Portfolio Fund. Vanguard active funds are not the superior market beaters as they were 10 years ago. This week Dan gave up on VGHCX after 18 years and advise his clients to decrease its holdings 1/2 and switch it to another one of his hopeful fund to increase his now Growth Portfolio below Index return. But where is he going to find the magic funds among Vanguard active funds.  Vanguard's only mutual fund within the upper 5% of it comparative rated funds is VGMPX and has been for 10 years, A good pick for a small percentage of ones portfolio, but Dan's says it too volatile for his suggestion. Dan has not been a high International allotter but is saying to up International allottment now.

The balance fund VWELX is in its upper !0%. Other funds in 10 to 20% are VDIGX, VPMCX, and VTRIX.  Funds from 20 to 30% are NAESX, VEIPX, VGEQX, VHCOX, and VWIGX.  Weiner doesn't have many choices and chances to be beat a well chosen 4 to 6 index portfolio today.

So Vanbookie forget Weiners's newsletter, buy a couple suggested books and use index;s funds  to get the market gifted return. An occasional active fund like CGMFC or JORNX (out-performers for 5 years) can boast your index portfolio slightly to get Dan's promised  2 to 3%. But just a simple Index Portfolio is better choice for the majority.

Even Stats with his promotional suggestion of Weiner is not a close followers with his dividend stock holdings, his many hours picks to go with a few of Dan's suggestion. And those  few are easy to find with Morningstar. Save the payment to Dan.

Macfield 

[/quote]

Interesting opinion.  I never was aware before that indexers put so much stock in 4 1/2 months of performance.

Perhaps you are unaware of Madsinger's monthly report, covering  a considerably longer period.  It seems that the DW growth portfolio beat every concoction of indexes that anyone has come up with.

By the way, it appears you spelled your own name wrong.

best,

Bill

Make that 5, including your "insightful" post.  Always a thrill for us poor folk when you come back to the  old neighborhood to spread your pearls of wisdom.

Bill - where have all you "poor folk" gone?  I would love to share more "pearls of wisdom", but it is tough when there are only 5 active posts.....and one is on Mother's Day, one is on Nurse Ratchet and one is on the most debated newsletter of all time.

:-)

Andy

Vanbookie,

When you subscribe to the Dan Wiener newsletter, they have a wonderful forum where you can discuss anything you want about mutual funds without all the criticism you will  get on this forum. Many of the posters on this forum also post on Dan Wieners forum. You will find everyone  on there very polite and helpful. This diehard forum is an  Index forum and thats all they want to discuss. Hope this helps.

Well Andy, I'll admit we can't compete with your new forum when it comes to timely topics like the "optimum functioning of the sphincter muscles", or "how many mistresses can I afford", but then my mama always told me that its quality not quantity that counts.

I made a post yesterday asking about the Florida LT Tax Exempt Bond fund.  I got three answers in 35 minutes, but the post was down  about 60 on the list in an hour.  Two of the answers were to the effect "Why does FL have a tax exempt fund?", the other from Mel was helpful.  Quantity, not quality.

So while we may be more like a small town here instead of an impersonal big city, at least each of our 5 responses are unique and not "me too" pile ons.

I'd say about 3500 of the posters there have read the "5 good books" and can't wait to show their stuff.  Not to say that I don't read there each day, but it is harder and harder to wade through the froth to get to your "pearls" :o}

best,

Bill

I am new to this forum.  I have some familarity with Vanguard but no indepth knowledge of the best performing funds.  ........  Can i do just as well on my own with the advice offered here, or on the Boglehead board, and with advice from the trade rags? [/quote]

As a multiple year subscriber, I feel qualified (but subscriber=biased) to answer.  The newsletter was extremely valuable in the beginning.  I, too, lacked indepth knowledge of the various funds and I gained knowledge of the active funds that I was unable to attain elsewhere.

If you follow the advice here, or on the Boglehead board, you are likely to do "just as well" and likely better than following the newsletter.  However, if you are considering the trade rags as a major source of advice, I think you would be better off with the newsletter.

Paul

Thanks for your question, which is currently on my mind also (it is one of the reasons I joined this forum about a week ago). Very thoughtful and helpful replies so far, let me throw in my $.02 as my first post.

My 70 year old father-in-law, who does not use computers, is a subscriber to the Wiener Newsletter and has used it as just one of his guides for the past couple of years of successful investing [i.e. during the recently ended bull market].  He lent me his copies of the Dec 2007 through April 2008 newsletters last week.

As a newbie investor - I've been passively investing in S+P 500 Index funds for about a decade, but recently decided to learn more by reading Bogle and others - here are my opinions/impressions on the Weiner newsletter, based on those five recent issues :

Out of the 16 pages, about 4-5 are performance charts for all Vanguard funds (information available elsewhere for free) and one page for the example Wiener portfolios.  Each newsletter also has a couple blurbs promoting DW and what he is selling or where he is speaking.

Each newsletter has an "interview" with a Vanguard Fund manager or other investment figure in a style which I would describe as fawning. There are usually two cover articles on what DW thinks is going on in the financial world; or articles on general topics like IRAs, etc., which are better written - but also information available elsewhere, often for free.

In addition to promoting his diversified portfolios [with, as noted already, sometimes unavailable closed funds], DW promotes "Hot Hands" funds which are actively managed funds which have performed well in the recent past. This strategy is called momentum investing. I am currently reading "A Random Walk Down Wall Street", by Professor Burton Malkiel, which is very critical of this strategy [and many others].

I am sure that the fans of DW here can provide you with some other titles to back him up!

Along with what I consider an ingratiating style, DW does not appear to be consistent to me. He downplays his misses while trumpeting how clever "you and I" are when he is successful.  In the Feb 2008 newsletter he cited Grantham, Mayo, Van Otterloo, one of the outside fund management companies used by Vanguard, in his defense of his "Hot hands" strategy, only to report in the very next newsletter that GMO got fired by Vanguard.

Based on the almost half year's worth of newsletters I have read, my advice to you is to

1) Use Morningstar for fund research,

2) Spend your money on some of the excellent books on investing recommended here.  I have recently bought a half dozen of the most recommended (Bogle on mutual funds, Bernstein on allocation, Bogleheads guide, Morningstar books, etc.) for under $99.

3) Ask questions and read the educational posts on here.

4) One of my next projects is to research the Morningstar Vanguard Family Funds newsletter. (I have not yet tried searching for opinions of that here, does anyone care to bite the hand that feeds us?)   ;-)

I am sure that the fans of DW here can provide you with some other titles to back him up!

[/quote]

I think most of your points are certainly legitimate ones.

Once again, I don't think that the newsletter is a "magic  bullet."  It is simply one of many ways to invest in a portfolio of Vanguard funds.  Put simply, if the dopiest thing an investor does is subscribe to a newsletter which encourages that investor to buy and hold a diversified portfolio of low-cost Vanguard funds, that investor is very lucky.

An investor can read a few books, and construct a portfolio as good as any professional.  Whether the investor will do so is the question.  I have a library of books from the Diehard reading list to lend to my employees, but few will read them.

Back to the OP:  If he will read the books, he does not need the newsletter.  If he won't read the books, he should buy the newsletter.

Petrocelli

[quote user="philip"]Apostle Bill,

excuse me your holiness, this humble disciple is bit confused ..
some time back while another poster (I think it was ccassel) argued
about the undisputed record of DW growth portfolio, your response was,
it was due to a one lucky call, VGHCX during the last bear market...
I followed the path you showed me and  canceled my $75 check to DW.
Tell me, what this humble servant need to do now, send another check
to DW expecting another lucky call ?

[/quote]

I pointed out on this thread that one poster was using 4 1/2 months of data to make a point and that the long term record was different.

My opinion remains that putting a huge amount of VGHCX into a portfolio in 2000 was very lucky call that could have just as easily gone south. It didn't and the record is what it is.  We don't know the future.

As a past subscriber to DW's newsletter, my opinion is that I personally don't need it. I have not suggested to anyone to buy it, on this thread or any other to my knowledge. 

If you canceled based on my statement about a lucky call, you were following a false prophet, as I'm just a guy with a keyboard and internet access ( but without the mansion, Cedes, season tickets to the Laker's, or the huge collection of girly web sites)

best,

Bill

In addition to promoting his diversified portfolios [with, as noted already, sometimes unavailable closed funds], DW promotes "Hot Hands" funds which are actively managed funds which have performed well in the recent past. This strategy is called momentum investing. I am currently reading "A Random Walk Down Wall Street", by Professor Burton Malkiel, which is very critical of this strategy [and many others].

I am sure that the fans of DW here can provide you with some other titles to back him up![/quote]

Here you go: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/cf_dev/AbsByAuth.cfm?per_id=1455

Look at "Dissecting Anomolies".  They don't endorse "hot hands" or anything alone those lines, but acknowledge its existence.

Malkiel might be critical of this strategy (momentum investing in general, but not specifically Hot Hands), but he does present some diverging viewpoints.  "Random Walk" is his popular viewpoint.  But he has also written books on Emerging Markets and China.  Both are a departure from "Random Walk".   Its not that I disagree with any of his viewpoints, just at face value they are polar opposites.

Paul 

Bilperk: What data did I used which implied that the time period was 4 1/2 month. The date  for the Vanguard funds was from Morningstar Total Return for each of the active fund and was a approximate average for 1, 3 and 5 years rating for their performance. No where in the posting did I say the data was for 4 1/2 month. The same procedure  for the non-Vanguard funds was used. I could of used 10 years total returns and the results may been slightly different.  If you are disturbed because of statement of lack of performance of Vanguard funds in relationship to other, check CGM, Fidelity, T Price Rowe, American, etc and you might agree their performance is closer to index benchmark

Many would agree that 5 years for competitive relationship between Index and active funds is sufficient especially if you are over the age of 80.

Murfield & Macfield 

 I have subscribed to Dan Wiener about nine years now, enjoy his perspectives, and use some of his suggestions. I like reading about good managed funds as well as index funds, and use both in building portfolios for myself and my family.

rrj

Hi Murfield,

Here is the Madsinger monthly report dated 2/4/08.  This is the first month that the index portfolio was included, at your request:

.

                           return  CAGR    CAGR   CAGR    CAGR

                   Jan     since   since   since  since   since

                   2008    2007    2005    2003   2001    1999

Hot Hands        -12.05%  -7.52%  12.86%  22.15% 15.85%  17.45%

Sheltered Sam     -4.92%  -1.78%   9.83%  16.38%  8.37%   8.61%

VFINX             -6.02%  -0.95%   6.09%  11.10%  2.24%   2.82%

s&d               -4.29%  -0.62%   8.86%  14.75%  8.11%   8.46%

Newsletter GIndex -6.90%   3.99%  10.28%  14.56%  7.03%   5.73%

Newsletter G      -6.50%   2.85%  10.40%  15.41%  6.80%  11.17%

3 fund            -5.27%   3.06%   8.87%  13.39%  5.69%   5.66%

LS G              -5.58%   1.46%   7.77%  12.53%  4.84%   4.95%

The numbers look pretty close to me for both portfolios.  The numbers in the April report are also close but favor the index portfolio more.  Thus my comment about using this years returns.

You also might remember, and perhaps more to the point of the OP question, that both portfolios were developed by DAN and that the index portfolio is not one that most folks would just stumble on in constructing one on their own.  So even if you are right that the index portfolio is better and kicks butt down the road, it is still one that DAN came up with.

I'm not suggesting anyone buy or not buy the newsletter.  But I think they deserve a balanced picture when they come here and ask a question.  If they want a highly opinionated, biased picture, there is another forum that is perfectly capable of providing that.

best,

Bill

Vanbookie:

As  much as Weiner gets beat on by some on this forum, he still provides a good selection of portfolios at lower than market risk. Can you get better returns? Sure, but usually at higher than market risks. I am not always 100% pleased with Weiner’s selections, but for someone like me who lost a bunch of money when the tech bubble burst, it helps me maintain my portfolio and limit my risk.

Risk and reward go hand-in-hand. I followed Weiner’s letter and growth portfolio through the late 90's and dropped it for the "Moneyletter" which was (is) a momentum strategy investment letter. Of course then it was ALL tech that was carrying the momentum, and I didn't reduce my exposure in time. By the time I woke up, it was too late and I let it ride. Turned back to Weiner in 2003, and learned a valuable lesson.

Bill

"No man is happy without a delusion of some kind. Delusions are as necessary to our happiness as realities." Christian Bovee

Not meant as an insult, or siding with either side of these thoughts, but I think most do look for some undiscovered secret to going just a bit beyond the known truths. As Petro mentioned, there are a number of books that have been offered here, and I still use "The Four Pillars of Investing," by William Bernstein as my generic offerings to anyone who doesn't understand asset allocation. Beyond that, I think Larry Swedroe has offered the closest to the ultimate ideas anyone might consider on investing. The only limits to Larry's ideas would be how much risk you are willing to take. Does anyone really believe you can find a market beating strategy beyond holding DFA US, International and Emerging Markets Small Value?

I think we choose to go beyong these books looking for something better(?)

The only problem I have with the Dan Weiner discussions is when it gets away from discussing investing, and becomes discussing Dan Weiner. Is it possible we could forget whether or not Dan Weiner is inferior/superior, and discuss his actual ideas?

How would Dan Weiner's ideas look compared to the Four Pillars, my Know-nothing, Malkiel's, Taylor and Mels, Larry's, or maybe Phil DeMuth's and Ben Stein's recently offered here?

I throw my Know-nothing ponderings in there, as I don't know of any others here who are offering their ideas beyond what was offered by some in the Asset Allocation conversation -- of which I appreciated, and still do.

Are there some ideas Dan is offering we might want to consider?

Chin

I retired March 2007 and subscribed to DW's newsletter, which I find somewhat helpful from time to time.  I have my IRA divided into two pots: one a modified DW's  growth portfolio and the other a 50/50. I do a lot or reading & skimming of books, magazines and online articles/information.  I enjoy summarizing things and have done so for over 35 years during my professional career.  I receive the most enjoyment and generally helpful information and suggestions from a great group of DW's adviser online forum members.  The forum, I believe, is the best part of the subscription.

ButWait   

Hi ButWait,

Its nice to see you posting  on the diehards forum.  I am also  a member of the DW Adviser Online Forum. Let's try to get  more of  DW's followers  posting over here.

Let's try to get  more of  DW's followers  posting over here.

[/quote]

Wouldn't it be ironic if the ultimate impact of the Bogleheads leaving the board is that Dan Wiener subscribers take over the Diehards board?  It sounds like a play by Euripides.

Petrocelli 

Well Andy is here. Perhaps we might even get Adrian to join the party. Just like old times. Wonder if we can get another 100 posts.  luapnoj what is your forum name ?
 

Macfield/Murfield the DW portfolios were started in 1991 not 1999. Not  sure if that was a typo or the date he picked up Health care.

nero 

I thank it would be wonderful to have  more DW followersw posting here. All of the origional diehards  are now Bogleheads.

I'll bet M* would be happy to see this forum become  more active again.

luapnoj

I thank it would be wonderful to have  more DW followersw posting here. All of the origional diehards  are now Bogleheads.

I'll bet M* would be happy to see this forum become  more active again.

[/quote]

This is not just pointed at you luapnoj, but all. Why the need for a new church? What is wrong with your old gathering place?

You are all welcome to join in on the conversations here, especially if you are looking to broaden your horizons.

Chin

I thank it would be wonderful to have  more DW followersw posting here. All of the origional diehards  are now Bogleheads.

I'll bet M* would be happy to see this forum become  more active again.

[/quote]

This is not just pointed at you luapnoj, but all. Why the need for a new church? What is wrong with your old gathering place?

[/quote]

Hi Chin,

I think he gave a good reason: "I'll bet M* would be happy to see this forum become  more active again."

The problem here is that this place isn't working anymore.  The poster who generates the most interest is Petrocelli.  Every time he goes on a posting spree, the volume goes way up,  but he can't carry the board single handedly.

I'd love to see my old friends from DW forum come over here to post.  They will talk about active funds, what sectors may do well in the near term in their opinion, should I sell my TIPs and go into HIY funds and such.  And it will mainly be about Vanguard funds, which is what this board is all about.

 The historical culture of this board, IMO, is that every opinion expressed here by someone is challenged by someone else and then turns into a discussion about investing, instead of Vanguard and their funds.  The focus is on the wrong thing.  Those who want those discussions about theory and investing in index funds have departed for the other board.  They only come back every once in a while to make sure we haven't covered over their graffiti.

If the culture is changed and it become clear that any discussion of VG funds is not only welcomed, but that people can have an opinion without having to spend hours defending it, then I think the numbers will grow to be in line with the other successful forums here.

As least that is my demented view on a warm and sunny morning in Florida.

best,

Bill

bilperk:

Well said. 

 I do not post here often, but I remember you from the DW forum some time back. I believe you were not totally pleased with DW's letter, and I can understand that. Not everyone is.  Speaking for myself, I need the discipline from DW's letter, and the encouragement and discussion of the forum. The forum is by far the best of the subscription. If I was not a subscriber, I would probably be performance chaising as I did in the 90's. 

There are some VERY good discussions on Dan's forum; and some very savy people giving their opinions and recommendations.  We are all very much the same, as we all have a computer and an internet connection. I even enjoy macfields posts - sometimes.

Don't need a new church, just new views about Vanguard and their funds, active or passive..

Bill

bilperk,

Very well said. You just hit a home run. I wish you would post  your statement as a new post so more people would  be sure to see it.

Thanks

I thank it would be wonderful to have  more DW followersw posting here. All of the origional diehards  are now Bogleheads.

I'll bet M* would be happy to see this forum become  more active again.

[/quote]

This is not just pointed at you luapnoj, but all. Why the need for a new church? What is wrong with your old gathering place?

[/quote]

Hi Chin,

I think he gave a good reason: "I'll bet M* would be happy to see this forum become  more active again."

The problem here is that this place isn't working anymore.  The poster who generates the most interest is Petrocelli.  Every time he goes on a posting spree, the volume goes way up,  but he can't carry the board single handedly.

I'd love to see my old friends from DW forum come over here to post.  They will talk about active funds, what sectors may do well in the near term in their opinion, should I sell my TIPs and go into HIY funds and such.  And it will mainly be about Vanguard funds, which is what this board is all about.

 The historical culture of this board, IMO, is that every opinion expressed here by someone is challenged by someone else and then turns into a discussion about investing, instead of Vanguard and their funds.  The focus is on the wrong thing.  Those who want those discussions about theory and investing in index funds have departed for the other board.  They only come back every once in a while to make sure we haven't covered over their graffiti.

If the culture is changed and it become clear that any discussion of VG funds is not only welcomed, but that people can have an opinion without having to spend hours defending it, then I think the numbers will grow to be in line with the other successful forums here.

As least that is my demented view on a warm and sunny morning in Florida.

Hi Bill,

I see a cheering section has already accumulated, so I guess I should offer an apology. Problem is, I don't believe in apologizing for speaking my honest truths.

To me, this forum is, and always has been about investing, not what Vanguard fund is better or has offered the best 3, 5 or 10 year returns. This forum has always been about Vanguard, and Vanguard has always been about the same principles this forum is based; low cost investing.

It has always been about diverse views, from Taylor to Larry Swedroe, and I have argued investing with both of them, disagreeing with both of them, or anyone else who will offer their own ideas, opposing ideas to theirs or mine.

I don't really feel comfortable making this statement, as I think the above highlighted part does not sound like you. However, to offer the idea someone should be able to come over here and offer their ideas and not expect to be questioned doesn't make a lot of sense on a discussion board.

As far as what M* wants, I am not concerned with what M* wants from the discussants of this board. If M* wants to close the board, or change the name of the board to Vanguard Weinerheads, they have that option. However, I will not change my views to meet their expectations or anyone else's.

As far as meeting the standards of the other "successful forums," I personally don't see them as successful.

This forum has always been unique, and not meant as an insult to anyone following another cultus, but the ideas here have always been the exception to the rule. Comparing our ideas to that of the more popular ideas is always going to present a clash, as our ideas here have always been at the leading edge, in my view. If we were to blend in with everyone else's views, there would be nothing special here to consider.

Yes, it has always been about Vanguard funds, and the folks here mirror the Vanguard philosophy of low costs and not fleecing their clients.

Whether it is called Diehards, Bogleheads or Weinerheads could matter less to me. It is still about successful investing, and this also includes whether it means Vanguard, PIMCO, Barclay's, Rydex, &c., but the fund companies and funds that offer the avenues we look for in successful investing -- asset allocation and low costs.

The idea someone should be able to come over questioning ideas we have become comfortable with, and expect not to be questioned is beyond my comprehension.

Have you not also been questioning those things you do not agree with all these years? -- Here?

Again, this doesn't sound like you. There must be some kind of mistake in your wording, or the way I am reading it.

Chin

Hi Chin:

The only part of my post above that was directed to you was the first sentence, which was an answer to your direct question.

The rest of it was my opinion of perhaps why this board is so dead, and what might change it.  No one is asking you to apologize and I have no idea what you would apologize for.  So when you said, "why do you need a new church?", I tried to reply "Why isn't your church open to everyone?"

Whether you "feel" it or not, a lot of people who believe in low cost Vanguard funds that just happen to be active don't post here because as soon as they do, someone (not you) will ask them why they are using the active fund instead of the index counterpart.

They will often give an answer the first time they are asked, but that usually leads to more cross examination and ultimately the not so veiled insinuations that "you must be an idiot to believe that active is better than passive".  This does not promote either further discussion or future participation.  I have heard a 100 people on other forums say they were "run off" this forum.  Are they all just thin skinned or radicals?  I don't really think so. 

I am not suggesting that active vs passive be off limits or that this board should be all active or really what it should be.  I am suggesting that part of being "civil" is respecting someone else's right to have an opinion even if you don't agree with it and realizing that everyone is not a great debtor and isn't comfortable having to defend everything they say.  The ones, like you and me, who are comfortable doing that  will still continue to debate as we always have.

But everything discussed on this board isn't about investment theory.  If someone wants to talk about how well Wiener's hot hand funds has done over the years, they shouldn't be told, as Petrocelli often was, that he is shilling for Wiener.

You have done a great job keeping what remains of this forum in some good discussions about asset allocation and portfolio construction.  My point here is there should be room for everyone and the Wienerites I know are very level headed, conservative, low cost Vanguard investors, who would add some much needed volume and fresh blood to this forum.

best,

Bill

bilperk

Bill, Thanks for the well written posts. I don't believe anyone  could have said it better and I think most everyone will agree with you 100%.

Bill:

I haven't read anything so moving and persuasive since Sister Mary Margaret made me read and memorize Kennedy's inauguration speech.  "Ask not what the Diehards can do for you, but what you can do for the Diehards."

As for the invasion of the Wiener hordes, the forum was abandoned by all the "published authors in finance", so we are now on our own.  For crying out loud, there are days when the friggin' Fidelity forum gets more posts than us.  I think it's comparable to those years between Bird and Garnett when the Celtics sucked.  All we need now is Ray Allen and Pierce.  If  we have to go to the Dan Wiener forum, that's Ok.

In the meantime, I think we should all start a Dan Wiener thread.  I think once we hit 10 active Dan Wiener threads, we will be permanently removed from diehards.org, but that's just paranoia on my part, I think.

Petrocelli
 

Hi Bill,

It is my belief if anyone mentions Shiller’s Hot Hands, just as if anyone mentions any hot funds or past performance, this idea should be challenged. This is the difference between the Vanguard Diehards and the other forums here, and most likely other forums elsewhere.

Maybe you guys have stumbled upon a guru to investing, but maybe Weiner has only stumbled upon the period which these Hot Hands did well, just as The Motley Fool’s Foolish Four, Rule Makers, &c. happened in a period when those stocks did well.

By questioning these statements, we can learn. By not questioning these statements, do we not become sheep following a shepherd?

BTW, I welcomed the Weinerheads in the same reply you highlighted;

[quote user="chinwhisker"]This is not just pointed at you luapnoj, but all. Why the need for a new church? What is wrong with your old gathering place?

You are all welcome to join in on the conversations here, especially if you are looking to broaden your horizons.

Chin

[/quote]

The Vanguard Diehards has evolved in the years you and I have been here, and we have seen this happen due to exactly what you are saying we now do not need to do. Folks come here with their new ideas and they are challenged. The ideas are either found to be lacking or worthy of consideration.

If Weiner has some ideas worthy of consideration, these ideas will find their way; fi not, not.

However, we cannot learn anything without discussion -- without challenging. I will challenge everything Weiner says, just as I challenged everything Taylor and Swedroe, along with a hundred more said.

If Petro will respond to these challenges, then he will find the respect he deserves here. Even if he does make good points he is still going to come across those closed minded individuals that will chastise him just as I come across those closed minded individuals who chastise me. It is the nature of a discussion board, and you can’t expect any other, unless everyone thinks the same. Everyone does not think the same here.

Chin

Hi Chin:

This board is dying a slow and painful death.  I am suggesting a reason why I think it is; (1) the folks who think the board should work the way you do don't post here anymore, and (2) the folks who think the board might run better if it was just a general discussion about Vanguard Funds and Vanguard without it always becoming a "prove it" discussion won't come here until it has been demonstrated that the board has changed.

I can't say it any clearer than that.  You will either continue to post on  a board with 5 new posts per day, or the board will change, IMHO.

I long for the simple, understandable life of the 50's and 60's.  It's gone and it's not coming back.  But at least that era evolved in to something.  This board has not evolved, it has just atrophied. 

The new board is a victim of its own success........human asset bloat.  This board is also a victim of the new boards success.

Now that is my view, and just like you, I am entitled to it.  You have civilly stated why you believe my view is wrong.  The question on the floor is not which of us is right, because we both are.  An opinion can't be wrong.

The question is, and I'm posing it to you Chin, is how do we fix the problem of this forum being the third or fourth choice for Vanguard investors here on the M* boards?

best,

Bill

Hi Chin:

This board is dying a slow and painful death.  I am suggesting a reason why I think it is; (1) the folks who think the board should work the way you do don't post here anymore, and (2) the folks who think the board might run better if it was just a general discussion about Vanguard Funds and Vanguard without it always becoming a "prove it" discussion won't come here until it has been demonstrated that the board has changed.

I can't say it any clearer than that.  You will either continue to post on  a board with 5 new posts per day, or the board will change, IMHO.

Hi Bill,

I must be honest. I would rather one post every five days that offers a good idea than a thousand posts a day spewing mindless garbage that can't be questioned.

As opposed to concerning over what M* might want, or what the forum should become, or what the Bogleheads board is, we need to talk about investing.

If M* wants to change the name of the board to Vanguard Funds, or put "Weinerheads, unite!" below the title, I'll honor the wishes of M* and/or the Weinerheads and leave.

Otherwise, I am here for the duration for anyone who wants to actually talk investing, and maybe learn a little something along the way, as opposed to follow some guru. I still like where I am, and am not going to be pushed out over the actions of either the Bogleheads or the Weinerheads; never have, never will.

It is my opinion all this talk about what the forum should be, or become, is a waste of time. Offer something worth considering, and those serious about investing will come back. If all that is going to be offered is what Weiner or some other guru offers, I'd just as soon no one bothered coming over here, and the forum was allowed to die a natural death.

I have never said it was a bad idea to invest in Wellington or Wellesley for those who did not care to take their knowledge to the next level. I would not say following Weiner's advice is bad for those who do not want to take their knowledge to the next level. However, I do not feel a need to back off and allow someone to say managed funds are best or Weiner is smarter without challenging these statements.

Quantity is no substitute for quality, and hurt feelings is no reason to hide the truth as we see it. If an individual does not have the gumption you and I had when we challenged the Diehards in our earlier days, they need to go to one of the forums that is less challenging as opposed to dummying down this one.

This forum is, or at least was, unique, in that it required an investor to think. If one does not want to think on their own without someone supporting them with one hand and robbing with the other, they can find probably a hundred or more online forums to fit the bill.

Please allow this forum to remain a Church of Reason as opposed to a Church of Faith.

What you think?

Chin

"What you think?"

I think we could, and should, have both.

"I have never said it was a bad idea to invest in Wellington or Wellesley for those who did not care to take their knowledge to the next level. I would not say following Weiner's advice is bad for those who do not want to take their knowledge to the next level."

Unfortunately, the above remark is the kind of condescending statement that causes most of the dissension here.  Since you don't really have a clue what Wiener's advice is, it also seem a little arrogant.

I'm here "for entertainment purposes only", to discuss investing of all types in general and light hearted way.  I'm not here to change the world, or prove that I can outwit and outlast every other poster who comes into my view..   

So, I've had my say.  And no one is asking YOU to change in any way. 

best,

Bill

Hi Chin and Bilperk!

Like a chipmunk sticking his head out of a ground hole to see if the woods is clear, I offer some common ground here.

First, no one disputes that there can't be challenges to posted items.  But my observations are in line with other posters that, at times, people get on a tangent discussing the merits of active vs. passive investing, etc.,  tilting thread themes too often. 

Secondly, certain posters like Petro and Chin are more dominate at least in terms of number of posts.  Chin, I suspect you lead the pack.  This is OK, (someone has to have the most) but such active participation can overly sway the direction posts take.

Lastly, I think this forum needs more posters...and I have observed the Weiner folks  being quite civil.

Chin, I have openly and privately stated I really enjoy your posts and work.  But there is room for all of us to back off a little and allow posts to stick to the OP's request in a more narrow sense.  My suggestion is that we do more of creating a separate, new post if we want to tilt or enlarge on a posted theme.  Creating a new thread allows those so inclined to join the discussion.  I have been hesitant to engage at times for fear of turning a thread.  A new post would allow full participation.

Just some thoughts...now this chipmonk is putting his head back down into the hole.

retired at 48

"I have never said it was a bad idea to invest in Wellington or Wellesley for those who did not care to take their knowledge to the next level. I would not say following Weiner's advice is bad for those who do not want to take their knowledge to the next level."

Unfortunately, the above remark is the kind of condescending statement that causes most of the dissension here.  Since you don't really have a clue what Wiener's advice is, it also seem a little arrogant.

[/quote]

Hi Bill,

I didn't mean it as condescending, but only stating it as I see it. To stop at Dan Weiner's, or anyone else's advice, which would include Jack Bogle, Taylor, Mel, Rick, Larry, William Bernstein, Bill Schultheis, and especially mine, would be faith based investing to the extent of which I feel fairly sure you would not accept. Are you saying you need to go no further in your investment considerations than what Dan Weiner offers?

Chin

Chin, I have openly and privately stated I really enjoy your posts and work.  But there is room for all of us to back off a little and allow posts to stick to the OP's request in a more narrow sense.  My suggestion is that we do more of creating a separate, new post if we want to tilt or enlarge on a posted theme.  Creating a new thread allows those so inclined to join the discussion.  I have been hesitant to engage at times for fear of turning a thread.  A new post would allow full participation.

[/quote]

Hi Ret48,

Bill and I have been having our own conversation here, yes, but I don't think I turned the thread. I was answering to this;

Re: Dan Wiener and FFSA luapnoj 05-13-2008, 7:43 PM | Post #2517537

0

0

0

0

0

0

-1

-1

-1