That "other" investment forum is really retarded

[Pointedstick]

Even here, most of the action is in Other Discussions. The 4x25 HBPP isn't all that challenging either; a portfolio consisting of VTI, TLT, GLD, and SHV is pretty darn simple, and a lot of the topics in other sections of this forum concern people nervous about owning assets more directly or trying to finagle a PP into their sucky 401k.

[KevinW]

Yeah. Although long term bonds, gold, and PP-style cash are all nuanced niche products that are not well served by the investing industry. So there is a value-add in our discussions about how to realistically implement them. Also gold is difficult or impossible to hold in most 401ks, and I think we've had productive discussions about how to handle that. By comparison, every IRA and non-abusive 401k I've seen has had some kind of broad stock index and intermediate bond index.

[stone]

Oh, by the way, this statement apparently does NOT violate their rules:*

'Re: Why don't people use the Permanent Portfolio?

I don't believe gold should be part of a portfolio.

I totally agree with what Charlie Munger says about it here:

“civilized people don’t buy gold”?. They are not simply involved in a zero-sum game in which the goal is to outsmart the computer system in the trading markets. They invest in productive businesses that add value to society.'

Is there really any truth in the idea that buying shares in SP500 companies can be described as, "invest in productive businesses that add value to society"?
When we buy shares we are buying them in the secondary market and the money we pay goes to whoever sells them to us. Retained earnings are the source of funding for established companies. As far as I can see, the extent to which those companies decide to invest in developing new products, machinery etc (rather than return earnings via buybacks or dividends) depends on whether they envision demand for the products they sell irrespective of whether the stockmarket has bid up the share price.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

[Mdraf]

Oh, by the way, this statement apparently does NOT violate their rules:*

'Re: Why don't people use the Permanent Portfolio?

I don't believe gold should be part of a portfolio.

I totally agree with what Charlie Munger says about it here:

“civilized people don’t buy gold”?. They are not simply involved in a zero-sum game in which the goal is to outsmart the computer system in the trading markets. They invest in productive businesses that add value to society.'

Is there really any truth in the idea that buying shares in SP500 companies can be described as, "invest in productive businesses that add value to society"?
When we buy shares we are buying them in the secondary market and the money we pay goes to whoever sells them to us. Retained earnings are the source of funding for established companies. As far as I can see, the extent to which those companies decide to invest in developing new products, machinery etc (rather than return earnings via buybacks or dividends) depends on whether they envision demand for the products they sell irrespective of whether the stockmarket has bid up the share price.  Please correct me if I'm wrong.

In my opinion it does not matter if they retain earnings because it theoretically makes the companies more valuable and that should be reflected in the stock. but I also note that the SP500 also contains businesses that destroy value.

[Tyler]

If everything is so simple, what are we all doing here every day?

Just because one does not believe in God does not mean one does not live on faith in other parts of their lives.  Sometimes checking in regularly isn't so much an act of continuous learning, but one of regular maintenance for a belief system.  When dealing with life savings, the stakes are sufficiently high enough to keep the uneasy investment parishioner on edge.

[MediumTex]

I think the difficulty of maintaining civility increases with the size of the forum and especially how mainstream the topic is. This forum benefits immensely from being small and focused on something esoteric and bizarre to the average person. It tends to attract curious independent thinkers and weed out blustery conformists.

Having a smaller group here does make it much easier to maintain order.

It's also true that Harry Browne's ideas just seem to attract a certain kind of person, and it's hard for me to describe what kind of person that is, but he/she seems (in general) to have good internet forum etiquette, which is really what makes this place work.

It simply wouldn't be possible to have many of the really interesting discussions we have here if people were quick to start shouting at each other.

[Bean]

...
I think another problem with the Bogleheads forum is that there really isn't that much to talk about. If you subscribe to their theories than the three-fund portfolio is the end-all be-all, and IMO there isn't much left to debate. There is already a comprehensive and widely available literature to educate newbies. That portfolio is so easy to implement that there aren't any challenges to solve with group problem solving. Newcomers might need help with a few minor points. But after that you have a lot of people who all agree about a subject and have amassed to discuss it, but there's almost nothing to discuss.
...

I started a thread there some years ago on that very topic. I can't remember the title, but it basically boiled down to, If everything is so simple, what are we all doing here every day?

Most people chimed in admitting they had no defense.
I do like to visit to see if a fund that I've invested in has changed management or components. And, I like to read the advice people get on their personal investments, even though that's obviously a well trodden path.

Also, it was in that forum that I discovered that Vanguard's passwords are not even case sensitive.

Boglehead forum doesn't even open up to the idea of a variable portfolio.  Here we can talk freely and without ridicule of not adhering 100% to the gospel of the PP.  It is a release valve for our tweaking of investment, with the strong caveat of accepted risk or money you are willing to lose.  Who knows, maybe someone here will come up with the next generation of the PP through VP experiments.

[dualstow]

Interesting thread going on right now:

Why do so many do the opposite of Mr. Bogle suggests?
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... 0&t=119780

It's not about the general population. It's about boglehead forum members. At the risk of sounding like an apologist -- it's a charge I can live with -- they're not as exclusive as they might seem.

[Libertarian666]

Interesting thread going on right now:

Why do so many do the opposite of Mr. Bogle suggests?
http://www.bogleheads.org/forum/viewtop ... 0&t=119780

It's not about the general population. It's about boglehead forum members. At the risk of sounding like an apologist -- it's a charge I can live with -- they're not as exclusive as they might seem.

Other than against anyone who suggests that they are ignoring facts such as the non-existent Social Security "trust fund", of course.

[dualstow]

Absolutely the most annoying thing about that forum is not the people but that when you click on a link, it doesn't open in a new tab/window 

But yeah, some of the members are pretty arrogant.

Can't you get around the link problem with a right-click? Are you using Mac or PC?

[Xan]

A middle-click usually opens a link in a new tab.

[dualstow]

Xan mentioned a middle-click. Yeah, if you have a wheel in the middle of your mouse you can click that.

[k9]

As for me, I hate it when websites open a new tab without asking for the permission. I'd rather do it myself, and open links in another tab if I want to, and in the same one if I prefer.

So hard to satisfy everyone

[patricia26]

I guest too that math is too hard for them

[jacob_h]

If you want to get banned here, you need to either be a spammer or repeatedly accuse the site owners of being lying opportunistic thieves with a preference for stealing from widows.

Over the last several years those are the only things that have gotten anyone here banned.

I guess it's just one of those persuasion vs. coercion things.

I first read that as "a preference for stealing from windows," and immediately thought of a cartoon where burglars take cooling apple pies out of open windows.

[melveyr]

Sometimes I don't like reading the political views that are expressed here, and sometimes the Boglehead's moderating stifles interesting discussions.

I like having both options.

[MediumTex]

Sometimes I don't like reading the political views that are expressed here, and sometimes the Boglehead's moderating stifles interesting discussions.

I like having both options.

The thing that would bug me would be if certain points of view were perceived as not being welcome here and were basically shouted down whenever someone brought them up.

I don't mind controversial topics.  What bothers me is when people don't feel comfortable engaging in a discussion because they don't want to be attacked.

I really believe that every adherent to a point of view should be given the opportunity to make the case for their beliefs and then be given the opportunity to explain how they arrived at those beliefs.  I've always hated the idea that it's not possible to be friends (or even friendly) with someone who has different opinions/beliefs than you.

It does, however, require a pretty enlightened bunch for that sort of thing to work in practice, but I think we do a pretty good job of it here.

The key to good discussions is not to get too emotional.  Once the emotions kick in, for most people a lot of mental flexibility is lost.

[koekebakker]

Sometimes I don't like reading the political views that are expressed here, and sometimes the Boglehead's moderating stifles interesting discussions.

I like having both options.

+1 I like both forums and I certainly wouldn't call the "other" forum retarded.

[craigr]

The Diehards is a great forum. They have a huge user base and need tighter rules to maintain some semblance of sanity for the moderators. Political discussions in particular are tough because it's guaranteed to immediately irritate a good portion of the readers and cause fights.

Moderating a forum is a thankless job and there is no money in doing it. So cut the mods there a break because it's a lot of work for a lot of unnecessary and unpaid stress.

[Libertarian666]

The Diehards is a great forum. They have a huge user base and need tighter rules to maintain some semblance of sanity for the moderators. Political discussions in particular are tough because it's guaranteed to immediately irritate a good portion of the readers and cause fights.

Moderating a forum is a thankless job and there is no money in doing it. So cut the mods there a break because it's a lot of work for a lot of unnecessary and unpaid stress.

If they enforced the rules fairly, I would have no quibble with them. They don't.

[l82start]

i probably climbed the learning curve faster than i could have any other way due to the "other forum" and their book/wiki pages, it is a great resource for beginners,  but once i had the basics down the rest of the topics are uber geek investment esoterica and the people doing the discussing have big egos. In a way given the size of the place the effort to maintain good beginner friendly threads and accommodate the big egos the moderating style is probably necessary, i have seen arguments flair up like dropping fire in a pool of gas when "experts" get their views challenged and letting that many "experts" talk politics would likely turn into a war and kill the forum.
the pp followers/forum has a large advantage in the fact that uncertainty and agnosticism are fundamental to the investment philosophy, our experts tend to have a internalized those things and they and our posters become less combustible the longer they work with those ideas.. 

[Libertarian666]

i probably climbed the learning curve faster than i could have any other way due to the "other forum" and their book/wiki pages, it is a great resource for beginners,  but once i had the basics down the rest of the topics are uber geek investment esoterica and the people doing the discussing have big egos. In a way given the size of the place the effort to maintain good beginner friendly threads and the big egos the moderating style is probably necessary, i have seen arguments flair up like dropping fire in a pool of gas when "experts" get their views challenged and letting that many "experts" talk politics would likely turn into a war and kill the forum.
the pp followers/forum has a large advantage in the fact that uncertainty and agnosticism are fundamental to the investment philosophy, our experts tend to have a internalized those things and they and our posters become less combustible the longer they work with those ideas..

Again, if they enforced their rules fairly, that would be fine. As it is, political comments are okay with them as long as they don't challenge the conventional wisdom. And even comments like not being sure about Social Security can slide by as long as they are not made by "suspicious characters" like me.

[l82start]

yes...  one of the problems with being an expert with a big ego is it means "always being right", and that applies to moderation decisions as well. if their opinions views and decisions are unquestionable and the idea of questioning them is taken as an insult to their expertise, then its not likely that weak decisions will ever be changed or corrected or fairness will be considered..

[craigr]

It's not easy moderating a forum. It takes a lot of time and patience. If their rules are no politics, monetary policy discussion, etc., then them the rules. Alot of frequent posters there have been warned about posts in the past as well <ahem>. So just don't post about those topics and all is well. Again, they run a site with a lot of traffic. They need to be restrictive to stay on topic. There are plenty of forums on the Internet to argue politics, etc. but very few good investing forums to discuss things rationally without the noise creeping in.

[Libertarian666]

It's not easy moderating a forum. It takes a lot of time and patience. If their rules are no politics, monetary policy discussion, etc., then them the rules. Alot of frequent posters there have been warned about posts in the past as well <ahem>. So just don't post about those topics and all is well. Again, they run a site with a lot of traffic. They need to be restrictive to stay on topic. There are plenty of forums on the Internet to argue politics, etc. but very few good investing forums to discuss things rationally without the noise creeping in.

Apparently my objection is not clear. Obviously they need to have rules, but if the rules say "no politics", then they should mean "no politics", not "no politics other than pro-governmental politics". If they mean the latter, they should say so.

Furthermore, how is it political to say that there is no Social Security trust fund? That is a fact, not a political opinion.

I actually have tried to follow their rules but was apparently unable to do so to their satisfaction due to the arbitrary nature of their moderation.