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.

luapnoj:

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

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

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.

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

chinwhisker:

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.

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?

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

 

Easier said than done to simply follow the advice on message boards, which is often contradictory and not necessarily authoritative or even the correct advice.  I'm not shilling for Wiener and am not a subscriber, however I suspect his recommendations are profitable, for te most part, given the success of his newsletter.  In the end, it's just easier for many people to follow one person's historically successful strategies than to sort through hundreds of posts on message boards from anonymous posters.

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

bilperk:

chinwhisker:

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.

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?

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