NoFeeBoards.com!

No Fees! No Ads! No Spam!

Log in Register FAQ Memberlist Search NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index

Is Hocus FIREd?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » FIRE Board
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 6:56 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One caveat I have is that you shouldn't include the entire value of a home in the part of the assets that can be drawn for living expenses. After all, one must live somewhere.

I think it depends on the assumption you are using re what sort of real growth rate you will see on the capital invested in the home. I haven't studied this question, but we had a discussion of this at an earlier time in which FoolMeOnce put forward statistics indicating that it reasonable to assume 1 percent to 2 percent annual real growth on a personal residence.

I don't know if that holds up to scrutiny or not. It's a question that I would like to see explored in greater depth at some point.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Fri Mar 04, 2005 7:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry I was unable to read that last post Hocus, it was just toooo long for me.

You don't know what you're missing out on, Beachbumz. I ride my own sorts of waves from time to time, you know, and that one brought some serious foam in its wake, if I must say so myself.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
JWR1945
***** Legend


Joined: 26 Nov 2002
Posts: 1697
Location: Crestview, Florida

PostPosted: Sat Mar 05, 2005 8:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

beachbumz
Quote:
I believe that Hocus IS FIREd at least for now and possible indefinitely (but not with his current portfolio). My definition of financial independence is the ability to live off your passive investments without the need for any kind of job or employment. I also think there are many 'retirees' that work part time because they want something to do or they are doing something that is fun to them and maybe getting paid. If they can quit anytime they want, without affected their FI, I still say they are 'retired'. (Of course, there are plenty of so called retirees over 65 that are working because they are not financially independent.)

Many people live on an annual income below $28000. It is well above the poverty level.

According to your definition, $28000 annually would seem to be sufficient. We only have a problem when we consider the desires of the individual.

Hocus plans to live on $38000 per year. But $10000 of that is through working at what he wants to do.

We have a conflict here because an absolute standard should not be applied. The standard should fit the individual. But if the individual is happy to bring in $10000 through work of his choice and you exclude that income, we will not be able to come to an agreement.

If you had set the standard at the poverty level, then we could have come to an agreement based on an absolute standard. Hocus easily exceeds such a standard.

Have fun.

John R.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 559

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 4:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

taking the opportunity to agree with hocus, I think his plan is a good one for "retirement" if you don't mind the need to work

he explained his concept of retirement elsewhere (rehp hocomania board? )

http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=HOCO



_________________
Have fun.

Ataloss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think his plan is a good one for "retirement" if you don't mind the need to work

Thank you for saying that, Ataloss. That's an exactly correct statement.

he explained his concept of retirement elsewhere (rehp hocomania board? )

I've explained my ideas on the need for a new understanding of the concept of "retirement" on all sorts of occasions in all sorts of places. The best explanation is the one I put forward in the book "Passion Saving," which I expect will be available for sale at my web site (PassionSaving.com) by May 1.

I don't intend that as a plug for the book. People can buy the book or not as they think best. My expectation is that there will be a good number of community members in both camps.

My point here is that one of my purposes in writing the book was to produce for us something we could hand to newcomers to the movement that covers most of the fundamental issues in one integrated statement. I believe that I have achieved that goal. To the extent that I become convinced that I have not, I will make changes to the book. My hope is that there will not be a need for changes, but I am putting the book forward this year only as an Advance Reader version (no sales through bookstores or at Amazon.com) so that I can see what the FIRE community thinks of it before making it available to "outsiders."

There are no doubt going to be people who disagree with some of the claims I make in the book. I wasn't trying to write a consensus document that everyone would be able to sign their name to. The thought was to put forward one community member's view of the entire saving-side aspect of the Retire Early/FIRE/Passion Saving phenomenon. I hope that my doing so will generate debate both pro and con the particular positions I have taken on all of the various topics covered.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
arrete
* Rookie


Joined: 27 Feb 2005
Posts: 23

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm slightly confused about all this. To me retirement is when you don't have to work. You may want to work, but your finances are such that you don't have to.

I can also understand wanting to work and having to work. I wouldn't call it retirement, though it is better than not wanting to work and having to work.

Whew.
FI plus no work = retirement
FI plus desire to work could = retirement (retire from one job to play in another, etc)
non-FI plus desire to work, not = retirement
non-FI plus no desire to work, not = retirement

Or something like that.

arrete


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ben
*** Veteran


Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 231
Location: The world is not enough

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I also agree that the Hocus plan is fine as he is willing to work for any downfalls. Whether the plan can be considered FIRE or not certainly depends on how one translates the meaning if financial independence and retirement. I do not agree with Hocus on how he translates that - but we don't have to agree - so no need to dwell with that Very Happy.

As to your book I do not think it will be considered very controversial - you general make several "disclaimers" when you reach conclusions in it (such as: this is just an example/use your own nos./this does not apply to all Etc.) which I think is needed (even though it adds a LOT of words) as we all know how people like to bring out the "yeah, but..." arguments when it comes to personal finance and saving Laughing.

Cheers!



_________________
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
unclemick
*** Veteran


Joined: 12 Jun 2004
Posts: 231
Location: LA till Katrina, now MO

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AND, and to add yet another two cents - may your income line stay north of your expense line(ala Your Money or Your Life).

Getting to grumpy old phart land - I have a tendency to give short shrift to - "touchy feely stuff."

BUT - to the extent it alters 'someone's previous thinking and gives them a new paradim'. - as they say in New Orleans: 'Yeah you rite!'.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 7:51 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

To me retirement is when you don't have to work.

The words "to me" are an important part of that sentence, Arrete.

For a long time, people thought of "retirement" as something you did when you were getting ready to die. You "retired" when you were too old and weak to continue to make a contribution.

We changed the concept when we put the word "early" in front of it" The idea that you want to prepare to die at age 40 just doesn't make sense.

My view is that it makes sense to want to achieve a level of financial freedom that allows you to do what you most want to do with it. I find work to be one of the great joys of life. The intercst vision of early retirement does not permit one to engage in this great joy. So I want no part of the intercst vision of early retirement.

I have a different vision of early retirement, a vision in which you are free to work or not work as you please. I have put forward this vision in a number of different venues, and received an extremely positive reaction. So I am going to continue putting it forward.

Even intercst responded in an extremely positive way in the days before I revealed to the community that he got the SWR number wrong in his REHP study. It is hard for me to imagine that there is not a connection between me showing that he got the number wrong and him now announcing before he even read my book that he plans to lead a smear campaign against it. It's hard for me to imagine that you don't see a connection as well.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beachbumz
** Regular


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Hocus!
Quote:
My view is that there is no such thing as being FIRE'd in a final sense. Financial independence is something that you achive gradually over the course of time. If you save one dollar, you are a tiny, tiny bit more financially independent than you were before you possessed that dollar. If you save 10 billion dollars, you do not yet possess every last dollar that you could find some possible positive use for, so you are not even then completely independent of money concerns.


I see where you are going with this and I don't disagree with most of your comments. Every dollar you accumulate puts you one step closer to FI; but, imho, financial independence comes when one finally has enough assets to live off the passive income and principle until they die without needing to generate any income from W***. I should have added in my original post something about a reasonable standard of living, which varies from person to person, but for you I used your budget of $38,000. The 'every last dollar' theory is a little out there. Just because you can't afford a 300 foot motor yacht doesn't mean that you are not FI. There is also virtually no NW number that guarantees FI forever imho, but let's don't get into the 'doom and gloom' scenarios.

Beachbumz Cool



_________________
Life is Good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beachbumz
** Regular


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 5:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Hocus!
Quote:
You're studying an absurd question, Beachbumz. You are asking "If I change hocus' plan around enough so that it doesn't work anymore, will hocus' plan still work?" Not surprisingly, the answer that you produce with this "analysis" is "Under those circumstances, there's a good chance that it might not."


The only absurdity here is that you did not pay attention to my original post, Hocus, and more importantly to the reason for the post. My post was originally made on Intercsts board in response to your plan being deemed a 'busted retirement plan'. I stand by my assertion that one can't plan on hypothetical income and if one has that income, then they are not retired in the normal sense of the word. (again I use my definition, to avoid any debates about that). My analysis showed that with SS as it exists today, your plan (even without the income) has a reasonable chance of making it, with the appropriate portfolio (only hindsight will tell what that is for sure). As pointed out on that board, the one wild card might be health insurance.
Quote:
Your conclusions follow from your premise, but your premise is a deception.


That's a pretty bold (putting it nicely) statement, Hocus! It's comment's like this that cause problems at this board. There was NO deception in my post. I think I spelled out everything quite well.
Quote:
Why call the plan you are analyzing "the hocus plan" if the plan you are analyzing calls for $10,000 less in income than the plan that hocus put forward as his plan?


Again, perhaps you should go to the board and re-read the posts. I was attempting to prove that your plan worked even without the $10,000 in hypothetical income. I find it quite humerous that it is only you that has given me grief about that.
Quote:
Why bother asking me what my plan is if you are not willing to examine the plan that I put forward in my name?


Did I mention that you should read the posts on the other board. Oh, yes, I did.
Quote:
You need a new name for the plan you are "analyzing." And you need to find someone willing to defend that "plan." Until you find someone willing to speak up in defense of the absurd plan you have concocted, my guess is that any discussions of it are not going to be too interesting or too illuminating.


Funny, JWR1945 mentioned that it WAS interesting and it seemed to be for some other people too. Smile This is not some absurd plan that I have concocted (were you drinking when you wrote this post? Embarassed). It was simply an analysis of your situation, not your "PLAN". As you may recall, you have not generated this mysterious $10,000 per year as of yet. (although I truly believe you will end up generating that and probably more).
Quote:
You have in essence subtracted $250,000 from the capital being used to support my plan (using the Mutltiply-by-25 Rule, it takes $250,000 in capital to generate $10,000 of annual income).


I agree with your rule, problem is, you HAVEN'T generated the $10,000 per year in income, nor can that be guaranteed! If you had a $10,000 per year pension with COLAs then I could accept the $250K number. So, basically, you have, in essence, not yet created that mythical $250,000.
Quote:
I don't know the precise numbers for the plan that intercst retired with, but my recollection is that he had something in the neighborhood of $500,000 on his retirement date. Subtract $250,000 from $500,000, and you are left with $250,000. Put that number into FIRECalc for someone who retires at age 40, and see what sort of likelihood-of-success probabaility it spits back at you.


This statement has nothing to do with this thread, so I have not comment on it.

Beachbumz Sad



_________________
Life is Good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ben
*** Veteran


Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 231
Location: The world is not enough

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
financial independence comes when one finally has enough assets to live off the passive income and principle until they die without needing to generate any income from W***.

I FULLY agree! So in my book Hocus is not financially independent. He IS retired from COORPORATE work but certainly not retired (in my understanding of the word - and no; it has nothing to do with dying Hocus) as he needs to work for a living.

Leaving the Hocus translations of FIRE out of the equation there is no danger in his plan as long as he is able and willing to work - and cover the gap from investment income (from $400k) up to spending needs.

Without using a calculator the $400k in tips(most at much higher interest than you can buy today)/Ibonds/CDs can last 15-20 years when withdraw $28k per year. At that time the kids are probably leaving the nest and Hocus could sell and down scale/re-locate or move in with Intercst Cool freeing up loads of capital.

Cheers!



_________________
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beachbumz
** Regular


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

JWR1945 wrote:
beachbumz
Quote:
I believe that Hocus IS FIREd at least for now and possible indefinitely (but not with his current portfolio). My definition of financial independence is the ability to live off your passive investments without the need for any kind of job or employment. I also think there are many 'retirees' that work part time because they want something to do or they are doing something that is fun to them and maybe getting paid. If they can quit anytime they want, without affected their FI, I still say they are 'retired'. (Of course, there are plenty of so called retirees over 65 that are working because they are not financially independent.)

Many people live on an annual income below $28000. It is well above the poverty level.

According to your definition, $28000 annually would seem to be sufficient. We only have a problem when we consider the desires of the individual.

Hocus plans to live on $38000 per year. But $10000 of that is through working at what he wants to do.

We have a conflict here because an absolute standard should not be applied. The standard should fit the individual. But if the individual is happy to bring in $10000 through work of his choice and you exclude that income, we will not be able to come to an agreement.

If you had set the standard at the poverty level, then we could have come to an agreement based on an absolute standard. Hocus easily exceeds such a standard.

Have fun.

John R.


I totally agree that the standard should fit the individual, that's why I used Hocus' budget of $38,000 as the figure he needs to live the lifestyle he wants. I believe Ben has mentioned that a person can live in Thailand on $1000 per month. I have also seen people pulling half eaten cheeseburgers out of garbage cans (and the half-cup of coffee to go with it) Shocked. I assume that these people are living on almost nothing, one could argue that they are financially independent. Laughing

Coming to an agreement, would be nice JWR1945, but I think you still miss my original point. I have no problem with Hocus' $10,000 income or whatever. I was, quite simply, trying to state a case for him (best case scenario) that said he didn't have to have that income to maintain his standard of living, and that was in response to posts putting the 'Hocus plan' in the 'land of busted retirements' on the original board that I posted on. My conclusion was that, while it is marginal, and there are some wild cards out there (Health Insurance, SS), that it might work even without the $10,000 in income. (I have never questioned Hocus' intention to earn the $10,000 a year)

Beachbumz Cool



_________________
Life is Good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beachbumz
** Regular


Joined: 07 Feb 2005
Posts: 79
Location: Cocoa Beach, FL

PostPosted: Mon Mar 07, 2005 6:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

arrete wrote:
I'm slightly confused about all this. To me retirement is when you don't have to work. You may want to work, but your finances are such that you don't have to.

I can also understand wanting to work and having to work. I wouldn't call it retirement, though it is better than not wanting to work and having to work.

Whew.
FI plus no work = retirement
FI plus desire to work could = retirement (retire from one job to play in another, etc)
non-FI plus desire to work, not = retirement
non-FI plus no desire to work, not = retirement

Or something like that.

arrete


I couldn't have said it better! Very Happy

Beachbumz Cool



_________________
Life is Good.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 2:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

financial independence comes when one finally has enough assets to live off the passive income and principle until they die without needing to generate any income from W***.

Work is indeed a four-letter word. Just like "love." There are some four-letter words worth knowing about.

If you define financial independence in the way in which you suggest above, there are many people who attain financial independence very early in life indeed. People in third world countries are able to sustain life on very little. Many of us in first-world countries sustained life on very little when we were in college.

If all you need to do to be FI is to be able to stay alive, FI is not so hard a state to achive. I have a lot of things that I want to be able to do with my life aside from just keeping it going. So I define complete FI in far morer expansive terms than that.

I should have added in my original post something about a reasonable standard of living, which varies from person to person, but for you I used your budget of $38,000

You are hitting on an important point when you note that what is "reasonable" varies from person to person. For some, it is reasonable to go with a plan that calls for them never to work again. For others, that is not reasonable. You need to set things up in such a way so that as many people as possible interested in pursuing the idea can feel welcome to pursue it. The rigid definition of the word "retire" used by intercst is a turn-off to millions.

You used my $38,000 number, but you neglected to include my $10,000 income number. So you did not examine my plan. All that you demonstrated is that it is possible to come up with a plan different from the hocus plan that may not work. We all knew that before you put up the thread-starter.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My post was originally made on Intercsts board in response to your plan being deemed a 'busted retirement plan'.

The appropriate response to the intercst post was to put up something saying "intercst, please knock off the funny business," or something along those lines. By responding with a post that appears on the surface to be a serious one, all you do is add some dignity to the nonsense that interest has been spouting on a number of boards for a long time now. That doesn't help, BeachBumz.

I stand by my assertion that one can't plan on hypothetical income

Everyone who plans an early retirement is planning on income that may or may not come in. If we experience the sort of hyperinflation that Germany experienced in the 1920s, all sorts of investments are going to be valued at a number approaching zero.

What we need to do is to calculate the risks we are taking, not enter fantasy worlds where we pretend that there are ways of setting things up that are "100 percent safe." There is risk in stocks, there is risk in TIPS, there is risk in real estate, there is risk in counting on $10,000 from a start-up business.

The constructive thing to do is to compare the risks inherent in the various options. That is what SWR analysis is for. Intercst uses SWR analysis as a club to silence those who know more about the subject matter than he does. That is an illegitimate debating tactic.

What we all should be doing is comparing the various risks. If you want to say that there is more risk in counting on a small amount of money from a start-up business, that's on the right side of the line. If you say that it is reasonable to count income brought in by people making reasonable assumptions re stocks and not to count income brought in by people making reaosnable assumptions re start-up business, you travel to the wrong side of the line. The money generated by start-up businesses is every bit as real as the income generated by stock investments.

If one has that income, then they are not retired in the normal sense of the word. (again I use my definition, to avoid any debates about that).

The definition is the entire question under dispute. I don't think there is anyone saying that my plan as I have described it is not a reasonable one. That's why intercst always engages in deception when describing it. You shouldn't follow in his fotsteps, BeachBumb. I get to say what is called for in my plan, not intercst.

There is no "normal" sense of the phrase "early retirement." It is a new concept. We are in the process of deciding how we are going to employ this word in future discussions when we participate in threads like this one.

Intercst has one definition. I have another. What we are trying to decide when we debate whether to remove him as Board General is whether we think his definition is an effective and appropriate one. I say that it is not. I say that his definition is an excessively narrow one and a devisive one.

I reject the intercst definition of "early retirement" out of hand. I think his definition has hurt us in the past and will continue to hurt us in the future so long as there are some who insist on using it.

My analysis showed that with SS as it exists today, your plan (even without the income) has a reasonable chance of making it, with the appropriate portfolio (only hindsight will tell what that is for sure). As pointed out on that board, the one wild card might be health insurance.

That's all nice. But you didn't examine my plan, BeachBumz. It is probably true that I would have a chance of getting by even without the $10,000 in income from the writing business. But that would cause us to live in a way that my wife and I don't want to live. If I didn't think that my writing business could generate a minumum of $10,000 per year, I would not have handed in my resignation from corporate employment at the time I did.

That's a pretty bold (putting it nicely) statement, Hocus! It's comment's like this that cause problems at this board. There was NO deception in my post. I think I spelled out everything quite well.

I agree that you spelled it out. Spelled out or not, it's a deception. You are describing a plan that I neither follow myself or recommend that others follow. My name should not be in the title of a thread that examines a plan that I do not endorse. It is deception to suggest that the plan examined in your post is my approach. It isn't.

Intercst has engaged in scores of deceptions of this type. HE has been misstating my views on an almost daily basis for nearly three years now. His misstatements have caused great confusion. There are many community members who have read his deception posts, thought there must be something to them because they were put forward by the Great and Powerful Intercst, and then repeated them themselves, adding still more confusion to the mix.

We need to stop the nonsense. When intercst puts up a post riddled with deception, we should not have people responding with "Good analysis, Intercst!" The first requirement of a good analysis is honesty. Intercst is not capable of being honest re the work done by anyone who has posted in an honest and informed way re what the historical data says on SWRs. Other community members need to stop sending the message to him that it is "OK" to continue to engage in deception as a way of settling scores with those who have posted honestly on SWRs. It is not OK.

Funny, JWR1945 mentioned that it WAS interesting and it seemed to be for some other people too.

I don't say that there was no value in your post, Beachbumz. If you go back and look at my earlier posts, you will see that I said some positive things about it too.

What I am saying is that the good work you did is poisoned by the deception you engaged in in trying to make it "acceptable" to intercst. You shouldn't even be worrying about whether intercst finds your post acceptable or not. Getting his approval is not worth dirtying your own work.

Tell him to stuff it if he doesn't like it. That's my advice. Most of us seek early retirement because we didn't like having to dance to the tune of a boss. We wanted to call the shots in our lives. Well, I have some experiences where bosses didn't do exactly what I would have liked to have seen them do. But never in my work life did I ever have a boss as narrow-minded, as obstinate, as self-concerned, or as dishonest as intercst. Intercst is my candidate for Worst Boss of the Year.

I didn't save $700,000 so I could go from working for imperfect but generall OK bosses to working for one who conducts a 33-month Campaign of Terror against a wonderful discussion board community because someone points out (in the most polite way possible) that he got a number wrong in a study. Intercst ain't my boss, BeachBumz. I played the game for awhile, but no more. I reachd a point where I considered my self-respect more important. I hope that a good number of others reach that point in the not-too-distant future.

If you had a $10,000 per year pension with COLAs then I could accept the $250K number.

I think that I have something better than a $10,000 a year pension. The $10,000 number is a minimum number. I expect that there will be years where I will generate $20,000, $30,000, $40,000 or more. How many pensions do you know of that have that sort of upside potential?

This statement has nothing to do with this thread, so I have not comment on it.

I think it has a lot to do with it. The reason why the question "Will hocus' Plan Work?" was put on the table is that intercst wanted to change the subject from the error he made in the REHP study and from the Campaign of Terror he initiated to block reasoned discussion of the error. I think it is fair to turn the tables and examine what FIRECalc says about the chances of the intercst plan failing in the event that you substract $250,000 from his plan as he put it forward.

My guess is that you will see that intercst's plan was a lot risker than mine. He got lucky in stocks, so he does not have much risk today. But not everyone who follows the intercst approach is going to get as lucky in stocks as he did. In the event that stocks perform in the future somewhat in the way in which they have in the past, lots who follow the intercst approach are going to experience busted retirements.

I might get lucky with my writing business. I don't include the money brought in from "getting lucky" in my plan. But you seem to be counting it in your consideration of the intercst plan. My plan is rooted in common sense and in an honest assessment of what the historical data says. His is rooted in nonsence and get-rich-quick schemes.

There are always going to be some people who follow gravely flawed approaches who are going to make it regardless because they happened to get lucky. We should not be recommending that others try to follow in their footsteps. We certainly should not be banning honest and informed on-topic posts on investing on grounds that it makes the pereson who made it only because he got lucky feel bad for people to know that.

You shouldn't be trying to defend intercst, Beanchnumz. When you associate your name with his, it doesn't make his look better, it makes yours look worse. He can't be defended by any reasonable argument. You should stop trying to cook one up. It just cannot be done. This individual's theories on SWRs and his posting tactics are both indefensible.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ben
*** Veteran


Joined: 17 Feb 2003
Posts: 231
Location: The world is not enough

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I guess a good way to set the living standard and thereby the budget needed at 4% (or whatever %) is to look at costs (not income) before one retured. I would think that the $38k then would be in the right range for Hocus (with $28k coming from investments and $10k coming from work). Sure; one will save on business clothes/lunches/commute Etc. but will get other costs such as health care, more leasure activities, no company perks(PC/car/tel or whatever).

I believe that the Hocus plan is fine - I do not understand why Hocus decides to talk negatively to poor beachbumz who is simply:
1. pointing out that (like me/Arrette and others) he does not agree with the way Hocus translate FI and RE
2. pointing out that even WITHOUT the $10k income the Hocus plan can work without holding any equities.

As for the SWR tool I fear we are up for a looong wait before the PE hits a true buy signal according to that. But I know that Hocus plan to get in in steps - something like 30% in stocks at high PE, 50% in stocks at medium PE and 80% in stocks at low PE. Hocus; did you buy anything yet?

Cheers!



_________________
Normal; to put on clothes bought for work, go to work in car bought to get to work needed to pay for the clothes, the car and the home left empty all day in order to afford to live in it...
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

in my book Hocus is not financially independent. He IS retired from COORPORATE work but certainly not retired (in my understanding of the word - and no; it has nothing to do with dying Hocus) as he needs to work for a living.

The way that I say it is that I am "retired" from having to report to a corporate employer to put food on the table, but that I am not financially independent in any complete sense.

Intercst's vision of early retirement does indeed seem something much like dying. I want nothing to do with his vision, and I have corresponded with a good number of aspiring early retirees who share my view that work can be one of the great joys of life. I find the intercst vision of early retirement a narrow-minded, ugly, and mean-spirited one.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ataloss
**** Heavy Hitter


Joined: 25 Nov 2002
Posts: 559

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
FI plus no work = retirement
FI plus desire to work could = retirement (retire from one job to play in another, etc)
non-FI plus desire to work, not = retirement
non-FI plus no desire to work, not = retirement


exactly

as ben pointed out on another board (rehp hocomania )
Quote:
Ascenzym; fully agree. Hocus have decided to use the word "retired" differently from most of us. So be it.


IOW retired in hocusian simply means not working for his former employer- in this "hocusian" sense I have always been retired and there are some 6 billion of us who are retired now Laughing
Quote:
I find it quite humerous that it is only you that has given me grief about that.
pointing out that the hocus plan could possibly work

I do too.

arrete on humor in fire:http://www.retireearlyhomepage.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=HOCO;action=display;num=1110239234

I find jwr's changing of the subject humerous as well

and hocus:
Quote:
If you define financial independence in the way in which you suggest above, there are many people who attain financial independence very early in life indeed. People in third world countries are able to sustain life on very little. Many of us in first-world countries sustained life on very little when we were in college.


this missing the fine point that living on "very little" isn't sustainable unless you have accumulated wealth ( ie 25 times annual expenses) or indulgent parents is pretty amusing too
Quote:
re·tire ( P )
v. re·tired, re·tir·ing, re·tires
v. intr.
To withdraw, as for rest or seclusion.
To go to bed.
To withdraw from one's occupation, business, or office; stop working.
To fall back or retreat, as from battle.
To move back or away; recede.


maybe ykw has withdrawn?

anyway

You need to draw lines, Ataloss. If you put up a post here referring to me as a "troll," you are engaging in an act of hostility and you do so knowing that there is a good chance you are going to get comeback either from me (if necessary) or from someone else (my preference). So just don't do it. Put up something on any of the hundreds of topics that do not cause friction between me and you, and there is simply no problem.

well jwr didn't take the hint. I am willing to cease posting on the deceptive nature of the hocus jihad if you will cease posting this silly swr stuff. You know as well as I do that it doesn't make any sense but it is possible that you could confuse someone. hocus there are hundreds of things you could post about besides swr- why don't you. are you just doing this to cause friction?



_________________
Have fun.

Ataloss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hocus2004
Moderator


Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Posts: 752

PostPosted: Tue Mar 08, 2005 3:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

it might work even without the $10,000 in income.

I think that's right, Beachbumz.

What I was trying to do was to create a number of different safety levels, not just one. What you are getting at here is that, evn without any income from writing whatsoever, we would still be able to pay the essential bills. That is indeed a status that I hoped to achieve with my plan. It limits my worrying and my wife's worrying if we know for certain that we will be able to cover the essential bills.

All that said, I would not have handed in the resignation if I did not believe that the $10,000 figure was a good estimate of the minimum income that I can expect from the writing business. I would not have handed in my resignation if I did not intend to continue working for a long time to come. If I wanted not to do income-generating work in my retirement, I would have stayed at the corporate job several years longer.


Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    NoFeeBoards.com! Forum Index » FIRE Board All times are GMT - 9 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Page 2 of 4

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001- 2004 phpBB Group
Designed for Trushkin.net | Styles Database