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