Suggestions for the Wiki

Local Chapters, Wiki, and general Bogleheads community discussion, news, events, and announcements

Re: FundAnalyze

Postby WheatThin » Mon Mar 30, 2009 10:24 am

maxrottersman wrote:Hi, I believe many people on Bogleheads would find fundanalyze dot com useful. I'm hoping someone here, if they agree, can put a link to it in the Wiki.

FunAnalyze takes any fund and finds matching low-cost alternatives. If you're a Boglehead and a friend asks you to give a Vanguard alternative to any fund in their portfolio, then fundAnalyze dot com can answer that for you.

Thanks!
Max


I'd not heard of this site before but it appears to be very handy. Perhaps each individual funds Wiki page can be updated to include fundanalyze.com's list of similar funds. This would help people find proxy's for Vanguard staples in their 401k. For example, it's a very common recommendation for people to use Fidelity Spartan 500 Index to replace VTSMX.
WheatThin
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby Ducks » Mon Mar 30, 2009 12:57 pm

maxrottersman - If you will suggest a page where I might add the link, I will be happy to add it. Thanks!
Getting our Ducks in a row since 2008.
User avatar
Ducks
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Wki link

Postby Barry Barnitz » Mon Mar 30, 2009 1:52 pm

The fundanalyze link is located at Tools and Calculators on the wiki.

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Postby WheatThin » Mon Mar 30, 2009 2:52 pm

Ah, thanks Barry. Didn't see that but, IMO, I can't imagine many people finding/using it. Seems a bit hidden.

I think a quick and dirty list of the funds that are popular substitutes for the bog-standard VG funds would be very helpful, especially for those trying to slog through their 401k options. Perhaps I am alone on this!

Thanks for all the work you do Barry.
WheatThin
 
Posts: 135
Joined: Wed Dec 10, 2008 12:21 pm
Location: Orlando, FL

Postby rockbottom » Wed Apr 01, 2009 1:31 pm

It would be useful for the wiki to supply keys to the many abbreviations and acronyms used in this forum.
rockbottom
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:56 pm
Location: NYC

Postby Ducks » Wed Apr 01, 2009 2:28 pm

Great idea, rockbottom. If you will start a list, I will be happy to add it to the wiki.
Getting our Ducks in a row since 2008.
User avatar
Ducks
 
Posts: 515
Joined: Sun Apr 20, 2008 6:01 pm

Postby bombcar » Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:06 pm

The Wiki page for "book sources" seems to be broken:

http://www.bogleheads.org/w/index.php?t ... 0470455579

Creates a link that Amazon doesn't understand:

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ISBN=9780470455579

A similar search at wikipedia (which has a similar page) creates this link:

http://www.amazon.com/s?search-alias=st ... 0470455579

I'd fix it, but Booksources is a Special Page.
bombcar
 
Posts: 371
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2007 7:41 pm

Postby rockbottom » Tue Jun 02, 2009 6:52 pm

Here's the list I provided in April. I'm unable to get a Wiki account, but I'd be grateful if people who have one would begin entering these.

AA
AGI
AMT
CD
CG
CGT
EM
ER
ESA
ETF
GO
HSA
IF
ISCV
KISS
LT
MMF
OP
P/B
P/E
PM
RE
SARSEP
SCV
SPIA
SS
ST
SWR
TIPS
TR
TT
USD
WSJ

There are a lot more. And there are, of course, also fund names and company names such as DFA, etc. etc. etc.

Thanks!
rockbottom
 
Posts: 191
Joined: Tue Dec 16, 2008 8:56 pm
Location: NYC

Postby Arby » Fri Jun 26, 2009 3:27 am

The $300,000 basis is deemed a distribution from the 401-k and is subject to income tax, and if Chris is less than 59 and 1/2, a 10% early withdrawal penalty tax.


http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Net_Unre ... tion_-_NUA

If it's the year Chris turns 55 (or later) AND Chris separates from service from his employer then there is no 10% penalty.

Note, many articles state that one must be at least 55 but anytime in the calendar year one turns 55 is OK.
Arby
 
Posts: 237
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 3:17 am

Postby mikep » Wed Jul 08, 2009 12:51 pm

Please see Bogleheads Investment Philosophy on the Bogleheads Wiki.

The link for Total Bond Market points to Inflation Protected Securities Fund, just thought I'd give you a heads up.

"The most typical Bogleheads bond allocation is to hold 50% nominal bonds (such as Vanguard Total Bond Market) "
mikep
 
Posts: 3111
Joined: Wed Apr 22, 2009 10:27 pm

Corrected link:

Postby Barry Barnitz » Wed Jul 08, 2009 1:09 pm

mikep wrote:Please see Bogleheads Investment Philosophy on the Bogleheads Wiki.

The link for Total Bond Market points to Inflation Protected Securities Fund, just thought I'd give you a heads up.

"The most typical Bogleheads bond allocation is to hold 50% nominal bonds (such as Vanguard Total Bond Market) "


Thanks Mike. I have corrected the link: Asset Allocation:Holding Bonds Is Essential.

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Postby retiredjg » Sat Jan 09, 2010 1:47 pm

LadyGeek wrote:The wiki's sidebar menu (the left-side of the display) was just updated to integrate more closely with the forum and be easier to use.

Links back to Alex's home page, the forum, as well as our sister Canadian sites are prominently displayed at the top left.

The top of the main page now makes it easy for new investors to find the investing "start-up" kits. There's even an "About the Bogleheads" link.

Comments and questions are certainly welcome, but please post them in the Reference Library and Wiki forum thread: Suggestions for the Wiki

Please take a look at the wiki main page.


Looks EXCELLENT to me!

[edit:added full quotation for context]
retiredjg
 
Posts: 18122
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:56 pm

Computer hygiene on Wiki?

Postby VictoriaF » Mon Jan 18, 2010 12:11 am

I was wondering if that would be too much of a stretch to add a section on Wiki related to personal computer hygiene. While it is not a financial matter, we do rely on computers to conduct most of our financial activities and to access this site. So there is some relevance.

The section could include recommendations for anti-virus, anti-key-logger, file encryption, etc., software. It could also contain recommendations such as using Firefox browser, Linux, etc.

Your thoughts?

Thank you,

Victoria
Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
User avatar
VictoriaF
 
Posts: 12377
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Re: Computer hygiene on Wiki?

Postby Barry Barnitz » Mon Jan 18, 2010 1:05 am

VictoriaF wrote:I was wondering if that would be too much of a stretch to add a section on Wiki related to personal computer hygiene. While it is not a financial matter, we do rely on computers to conduct most of our financial activities and to access this site. So there is some relevance.

The section could include recommendations for anti-virus, anti-key-logger, file encryption, etc., software. It could also contain recommendations such as using Firefox browser, Linux, etc.

Your thoughts?

Thank you,

Victoria


We could easily accommodate your desire, Victoria, all that is needed is for forum members who wish to collaborate on the page to sign in on the wiki and start developing the page. If interested and not yet signed up, simply send a private message and we can set you up for contributing to the page.

It would probably be a good idea to also include some non-technical descriptive verbiage (or links) on the page for the many forum members who are not technical computer wonks.

thanks,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Postby LadyGeek » Mon Jan 18, 2010 9:09 pm

Victoria,

To counter Barry's point, I think addressing topics outside investing / finance is not in the best interest of the wiki. Personal computer hygiene, more appropriately known as computer security, is a very broad topic that is already covered by literally thousands of web sites. Those web sites are run by the experts in technology. Further, this technology seems to change almost hourly.

There's no way that a few contributors could write even fewer articles to properly capture the topic, let alone maintain it.

Consider an analogy: Should there be a wiki on auto repair as most members have cars? Probably not.

My point is that the wiki is best served by focusing on the topic this forum knows best - investing and finance (not to mention that we have contributors who are authoritative experts). I don't think the wiki's purpose should be diluted outside this scope.

Please continue to ask questions in the Lounge forum. You'll get some good answers, but I think the best approach is to utilize the "experts" on the technology web sites.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19596
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Postby Mel Lindauer » Mon Jan 18, 2010 10:38 pm

LadyGeek wrote:Victoria,

To counter Barry's point, I think addressing topics outside investing / finance is not in the best interest of the wiki. Personal computer hygiene, more appropriately known as computer security, is a very broad topic that is already covered by literally thousands of web sites. Those web sites are run by the experts in technology. Further, this technology seems to change almost hourly.

There's no way that a few contributors could write even fewer articles to properly capture the topic, let alone maintain it.

Consider an analogy: Should there be a wiki on auto repair as most members have cars? Probably not.

My point is that the wiki is best served by focusing on the topic this forum knows best - investing and finance (not to mention that we have contributors who are authoritative experts). I don't think the wiki's purpose should be diluted outside this scope.

Please continue to ask questions in the Lounge forum. You'll get some good answers, but I think the best approach is to utilize the "experts" on the technology web sites.


I think LadyGeek's reply makes perfect sense to me, Victoria. It's been a enough of a grind getting folks to work on the wiki on a subject they know (investing). Let's not lose our focus.
Best Regards - Mel | | Semper Fi
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
 
Posts: 22312
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida

Postby VictoriaF » Fri Jan 22, 2010 2:25 pm

Mel Lindauer wrote:
LadyGeek wrote:Victoria,

To counter Barry's point, I think addressing topics outside investing / finance is not in the best interest of the wiki. Personal computer hygiene, more appropriately known as computer security, is a very broad topic that is already covered by literally thousands of web sites. Those web sites are run by the experts in technology. Further, this technology seems to change almost hourly.

There's no way that a few contributors could write even fewer articles to properly capture the topic, let alone maintain it.

Consider an analogy: Should there be a wiki on auto repair as most members have cars? Probably not.

My point is that the wiki is best served by focusing on the topic this forum knows best - investing and finance (not to mention that we have contributors who are authoritative experts). I don't think the wiki's purpose should be diluted outside this scope.

Please continue to ask questions in the Lounge forum. You'll get some good answers, but I think the best approach is to utilize the "experts" on the technology web sites.


I think LadyGeek's reply makes perfect sense to me, Victoria. It's been a enough of a grind getting folks to work on the wiki on a subject they know (investing). Let's not lose our focus.

LadyGeek and Mel,

Your point is well taken. Thank you,

Victoria
Every joke has a bit of a joke. ... The rest is the truth. (Marat F)
User avatar
VictoriaF
 
Posts: 12377
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 8:27 am
Location: Black Swan Lake

Postby idahospud » Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:20 pm

Maybe just a technicality but BH Wiki Librarians should note:

In the BH Wiki William Bernstein's 'Cowards' Porfolio is essentially the same as the Market Watch William Bernstein's 'Smart Money' Portfolio.

There is one slight semantic difference:
WB Coward has 5% 'Small Blend'
WB Smart Money has 5% 'VG Small Cap Index'

Does anyone know why this William Bernstein 'Lazy Portfolio' should have two different names?
idahospud
 
Posts: 405
Joined: Fri Dec 28, 2007 11:58 am

Postby retiredjg » Wed Jul 14, 2010 5:52 pm

Since this thread has popped up....can someone make a correction in the Wiki? The "Please see _____ in the BH Wiki" link does not work on this page because of the parentheses in 401(k). When corrected to 401k, it works fine.

Thanks!
retiredjg
 
Posts: 18122
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:56 pm

Postby livesoft » Wed Jul 14, 2010 6:10 pm

One should be able to use the hex notation as well for ( and ).
livesoft
 
Posts: 34230
Joined: Thu Mar 01, 2007 9:00 pm

Postby LadyGeek » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:20 pm

retiredjg wrote:Since this thread has popped up....can someone make a correction in the Wiki? The "Please see _____ in the BH Wiki" link does not work on this page because of the parentheses in 401(k). When corrected to 401k, it works fine.

Thanks!
Thanks for the suggestion. The current version of the forum phpBB software can't translate the parenthesis (and a few other ASCII characters) into a proper link. It's been discussed before (but not recently).

livesoft is indeed correct that you can use hex notation. Swap "%28" for "(" and "%29" for ")".
Please see [url=http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/How_to_Campaign_for_a_Better_401%28k%29_Plan]How to Campaign for a Better 401(k) Plan[/url] on the Bogleheads Wiki.
Please see How to Campaign for a Better 401(k) Plan on the Bogleheads Wiki.

The wikitext coding for that line took a lot of debugging (by Dan Kohn) to get working. It's a template; meaning code once, insert everywhere.

You can see how it's done by clicking on the "view source" tab at the top of the Template:Cite page. The code doesn't work for templates or talk pages, either. It's a choice of breaking the template code for a few pages or waiting for the forum software upgrade. Good design practice says don't break the template.

This is probably way too much info for the non-tech crowd, but that's how it works. I can certainly take another look at it.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19596
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Postby retiredjg » Wed Jul 14, 2010 8:28 pm

LadyGeek wrote:
retiredjg wrote:Since this thread has popped up....can someone make a correction in the Wiki? The "Please see _____ in the BH Wiki" link does not work on this page because of the parentheses in 401(k). When corrected to 401k, it works fine.

Thanks!
Thanks for the suggestion. The current version of the forum phpBB software can't translate the parenthesis (and a few other ASCII characters) into a proper link. It's been discussed before (but not recently).

livesoft is indeed correct that you can use hex notation. Swap "%28" for "(" and "%29" for ")".
Please see [url=http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/How_to_Campaign_for_a_Better_401%28k%29_Plan]How to Campaign for a Better 401(k) Plan[/url] on the Bogleheads Wiki.
Please see How to Campaign for a Better 401(k) Plan on the Bogleheads Wiki.

The wikitext coding for that line took a lot of debugging (by Dan Kohn) to get working. It's a template; meaning code once, insert everywhere.

You can see how it's done by clicking on the "view source" tab at the top of the Template:Cite page. The code doesn't work for templates or talk pages, either. It's a choice of breaking the template code for a few pages or waiting for the forum software upgrade. Good design practice says don't break the template.

This is probably way too much info for the non-tech crowd, but that's how it works. I can certainly take another look at it.

Thanks for the reply, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I'll just keep removing the () manually. I thought I was just asking someone to remove a ( and a ) . Guess it is more complicated than that.
retiredjg
 
Posts: 18122
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 1:56 pm

Postby LadyGeek » Wed Jul 14, 2010 10:18 pm

retiredjg wrote:Thanks for the reply, but I have no idea what you are talking about. I'll just keep removing the () manually. I thought I was just asking someone to remove a ( and a ) . Guess it is more complicated than that.
For this specific problem, yes. There's quite a lot going on "under the hood" to make the wiki easy to use. Web sites are even more complicated. Now you see how investing sometimes appears to me. :)

idahospud wrote:Maybe just a technicality but BH Wiki Librarians should note:

In the BH Wiki William Bernstein's 'Cowards' Porfolio is essentially the same as the Market Watch William Bernstein's 'Smart Money' Portfolio.

There is one slight semantic difference:
WB Coward has 5% 'Small Blend'
WB Smart Money has 5% 'VG Small Cap Index'

Does anyone know why this William Bernstein 'Lazy Portfolio' should have two different names?
Interesting, as I think it's a bit more than just the name. The July 1997 Coward's Portfolio on William Bernstein’s web site has the breakdown percentages. I don’t see a match to the Market Watch article. It looks close, but some allocations are combined.

The Kirk Report: William Bernstein's No-Brainer Portfolios mostly matches the Market Watch report, including ticker symbols. The last line is the small cap value fund, which can be NAESX or VTMSX.

VG's has 3 small cap / blend stock fund offerings Research Funds & Stocks » All Vanguard Mutual Funds (Check the Sm / bld style box):

Vanguard Small-Cap Index Fund Investor Shares (NAESX)
Vanguard Strategic Small-Cap Equity Fund (VSTCX)
Vanguard Tax-Managed Small-Cap Fund (VTMSX)

Comparing to the Market Watch article, there’s still a discrepancy, as VTMSX is not an index fund.

Does anyone have the actual reference for the Coward’s Portfolio that appears in the Market Watch and Kirk Report? I own Bernstein’s The Four Pillars of Investing but an exact match was not found. Maybe it’s in another publication?
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19596
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Postby notPatience » Sun Jul 18, 2010 4:48 pm

I was searching for info on withdrawing from trad IRA between the 59.5 and 70.5 -- found lots on penalties pre-59.5 and lots on RMDs at 70.5, but didn't find the answer to my question in between.

Perhaps I missed it in the Wiki. If so, I apologize. I also didn't find it in the web-o-sphere.

Did get succinct and quick answer when I asked on a forum. This might be of interest to others:

viewtopic.php?t=57715

Thank you for all the Wiki work!

not Patience
notPatience
 
Posts: 113
Joined: Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:46 pm

Postby hudson » Mon Jul 19, 2010 12:18 am

Consider adding Penfed's new service to the Penfed Wiki...

One can now scan and deposit checks electronically.

https://www.penfed.org/onlineBanking/de ... ywhere.asp

"Deposit Anywhere (check scan edition)
The new, convenient feature of Deposit Anywhere includes check scanning capabilities. The Deposit Anywhere service can be used in conjunction with a scanner to deposit up to $5,000 per member per day. Members will need to scan the front and back of their check to receive immediate credit without having to mail the check to a PenFed location for processing.

•View the requirements for Deposit Anywhere check scanning
•Deposit Anywhere Online Education Center - for all your questions about our check scanning feature"

I know that USAA has had this service for a while.
hudson
 
Posts: 755
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 10:15 am

In re: Deposit Anywhere

Postby Barry Barnitz » Tue Jul 20, 2010 8:07 am

hudson wrote:Consider adding Penfed's new service to the Penfed Wiki...

One can now scan and deposit checks electronically.

https://www.penfed.org/onlineBanking/de ... ywhere.asp

"Deposit Anywhere (check scan edition)
The new, convenient feature of Deposit Anywhere includes check scanning capabilities. The Deposit Anywhere service can be used in conjunction with a scanner to deposit up to $5,000 per member per day. Members will need to scan the front and back of their check to receive immediate credit without having to mail the check to a PenFed location for processing.

•View the requirements for Deposit Anywhere check scanning
•Deposit Anywhere Online Education Center - for all your questions about our check scanning feature"

I know that USAA has had this service for a while.


Thanks,
I have added a brief section. Please see Pentagon Federal Credit Union on the Bogleheads Wiki.

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Barry/Mel -- Annuity Series

Postby Taylor Larimore » Fri Aug 13, 2010 2:29 pm

Hi Barry/Mel:

I would like to suggest a WIKI link to Mel's excellent "Annuity Articles." Maybe 6 links to each article and its type of annuity.

Mel, can you provide the link(s)?
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Advisory Board
 
Posts: 20096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Re: Barry/Mel -- Annuity Series

Postby Mel Lindauer » Fri Aug 13, 2010 4:54 pm

Taylor Larimore wrote:Hi Barry/Mel:

I would like to suggest a WIKI link to Mel's excellent "Annuity Articles." Maybe 6 links to each article and its type of annuity.

Mel, can you provide the link(s)?


Hi Taylor:

There is a section in the wiki titled "The Bogleheads' View" and it has links to all of the Forbes columns we've written, inlcuding my six-part annuity series. You can find it either by searching for "The Bogleheads' View" or going directly to it here:

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/The_Bogleheads%27_View
Best Regards - Mel | | Semper Fi
User avatar
Mel Lindauer
Moderator
 
Posts: 22312
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:49 pm
Location: Daytona Beach Shores, Florida

Links to article

Postby Peter Foley » Mon Aug 16, 2010 10:19 pm

There is a 2006 TIAA-CREF Institute paper by William Reichenstein, Tax-
Efficient Sequencing of Accounts to Tap in Retirement
.

The article reports that by applying certain principles one can increase account longevity by 2.5 to 3.0 years.

If possible, a link to this article would be appropriate both under the Withdrawal Strategies content area and the Taxes content area of the Wiki.

I found the article by means of a link (or two or three) from the Wiki about a year ago. I can not longer recreate that series of links. I think Bogleheads interested in taxes and in withdrawal strategies would find the article interesting. Thank you for considering this request - and for all the work you have done on the Wiki! Peter Foley - aka Thomas Romens
User avatar
Peter Foley
 
Posts: 2325
Joined: Fri Nov 23, 2007 11:34 am
Location: Lake Wobegon

Postby ruralavalon » Tue Nov 02, 2010 5:01 pm

There is an error in the "Bonds Are Essential" section of the '"Boglehead's Investment Philosophy" page, where it says "The most typical Bogleheads bond allocation is to hold 50% nominal bonds (such as Vanguard Total Bond Market) and 50% inflation-protected securities (such as Vanguard Inflation Protected Securities". http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Boglehea ... Philosophy .

Actually, according to this poll, the most typical (median) seems to be about 20% TIPS. 51% report holding 20% or less in TIPS, and 25% report holding no TIPS at all. viewtopic.php?p=745492 .
"Everything should be as simple as it is, but not simpler." - Albert Einstein | Wiki article link:Getting Started
User avatar
ruralavalon
 
Posts: 5023
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2008 11:29 am
Location: Illinois

Postby Barry Barnitz » Wed Nov 03, 2010 4:08 pm

ruralavalon wrote:There is an error in the "Bonds Are Essential" section of the '"Boglehead's Investment Philosophy" page, where it says "The most typical Bogleheads bond allocation is to hold 50% nominal bonds (such as Vanguard Total Bond Market) and 50% inflation-protected securities (such as Vanguard Inflation Protected Securities". http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Boglehea ... Philosophy .

Actually, according to this poll, the most typical (median) seems to be about 20% TIPS. 51% report holding 20% or less in TIPS, and 25% report holding no TIPS at all. viewtopic.php?p=745492 .


Hi:

I have revised the text, referencing both the poll link and the recent Bogleheads 9 video, where Rick Ferri likewise advocates a 20% target allocation for TIPS in the bond allocation.

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Postby LadyGeek » Sun Nov 28, 2010 11:02 am

From Question on wiki & S&P 500 130/30 Strategy Index:
kcyahoo wrote:LadyGeek
I don't want to be a pest and really appreciate your work that goes into the WIKI and your help to many posters.
I went to "Suggestions for WIKI" and got message "Only Moderators can post here".
My original point was this, "the 130/30 investment strategy" in WIKI is very confusing regardless of category. Even if it is appropriate for more advanced investors it is not appropriate to be listed first in any category, especially one where novice investors might encounter it. It seems that labeling this entry with a heading of "1" was an attempt to get it up front in the category. If it stays in WIKI the "1" needs to change to place it in a more advanced WIKI discussion.
I guess my real problem with this WIKI entry is that it doesn't even seem to be appropriate for any boglehead category. Regards, KC

Testing that you can post to this thread, this page needs review. I'm not sure how to address kcyahoo's comment that this page is not appropriate - can someone else take a look at it?

Wiki article link: 130/30 Investment Strategy

(Updated to ask for assistance.)
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19596
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia

I agree

Postby Laura » Sun Nov 28, 2010 12:55 pm

I actually sort of agree. That isn't something we would want most people to start with. Perhaps you can solve the problem by putting the number 1 after the letter Z instead of before the letter A. That would actually move it to the bottom.

The other question is whether we should have something on it at all. I don't think ignoring it is the answer. Most people who look at that page won't do anything with it so I think moving it out of the place of prominence is the best bet.

Laura
Laura
 
Posts: 7017
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:40 pm

Jack Bogle's advice ?

Postby Taylor Larimore » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:06 pm

Let's remember that the Boglehead Forum is "Investing Advice Inspired by the Wisdom of Jack Bogle."

I doubt if Jack would endorse a 130/30 investment strategy. I feel it's OK to explain alternate investments, but they should not appear as a Boglehead recommended strategy.
"Simplicity is the master key to financial success." -- Jack Bogle
User avatar
Taylor Larimore
Advisory Board
 
Posts: 20096
Joined: Tue Feb 27, 2007 9:09 pm
Location: Miami FL

Postby Barry Barnitz » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:40 pm

A couple of points about this page:

1. As to placement, this is automatically generated in wiki. Pages in wiki categories are automatically organized alphabetically. Pages beginning with a number precede the A-Z sequencing. Position has no real relevance in terms of importance. Example: Wikipedia Category: German Composers.

2. The page is a transfer from theResearch Library entry, which was primarily a resource of links to definitions, practitioner papers, and academic papers. Transferring the research library into the wiki was one of the earliest "projects' undertaken by the wiki staff. The current page simply reflects its pedigree as a research library listing, hence the expand notice.

3. The original page (in the research library) was an initial attempt at providing research papers and indexes for long/short strategies that were becoming imminent in new Vanguard fund offerings such as the Vanguard Market Neutral Fund and the Vanguard Managed Payout Funds. Now in actuality, these Vanguard funds currently utilize a market neutral strategy approach which is a different implementation of the long/short strategy (the managed payout funds also have a yet to be implemented allocation to absolute return strategies). The the page could be redrafted as a "market neutral" page, although both the market neutral and 130/30 strategies are often combined in long/short studies and articles, so perhaps a redraft to a "long/short" page is warranted.

Additional links not included in the current page (from investopedia)



regards,
Last edited by Barry Barnitz on Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:45 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

position

Postby Laura » Sun Nov 28, 2010 1:44 pm

Should we even continue to include it if we cannot control where it is? Like I said, it is an intimidating page and only people who are really interested are likely to read it.

Laura
Laura
 
Posts: 7017
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:40 pm

Postby LadyGeek » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:17 pm

"1" comes before "A" in the computer alphabet (ASCII). If you rename the page to something like "zz130/30", which would put it last, you've changed the name to a topic that does not make sense to humans and the page's usefulness is lost.

Take a look at the bottom of the 130/30 Investment Strategy page, which contains a table of related articles. What are the feelings with regards to gold, art, and hedge funds?

Can we compromise? You want to educate investors that these topics don't follow the Bogleheads' investing philosophy, yet provide very useful information to the advanced investors (who know what this is, and will proceed anyway).

Hiding information is not the right approach, as investors will go elsewhere and quite possibly do the wrong thing. You want to educate investors on why this is not recommended.

Add to the top of these pages:
Caveat: (topic) is not recommended for new investors, as it does not follow the Bogleheads investing philosophy. Ask in the forum for guidance. (Go into detail as needed.)

For example, take a look at what I just did on the new Structured Products page. (Forum review requested: Wiki - Structured Products)
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19596
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Long/Short

Postby Laura » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:25 pm

Why don't we call it "Long/Short 130/30 strategy" and that will move if off of the number one spot but not get rid of it entirely.

We can also add the caveat you mention.

Laura
Laura
 
Posts: 7017
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:40 pm

Postby Barry Barnitz » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:42 pm

Hi:

I have retitled, moved, and made modest adjustments to the page.
Wiki article link: Long/Short Investment Strategies.

As to caveats, the wording should reflect the provisional nature of "not recommended" since none of us can know what the "prudent investor" strategy/vehicles will be in the year 2060. Thus I would say "currently not recommended" for asset classes\ strategies that are not canonical to the Bogleheads "approved" pallet of selections. This proviso would not include areas where there is no consensus opinion (for example, gold, precious metals. or commodities).

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

wiki

Postby Laura » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:49 pm

Barry,

It still shows up under the number 1 on the main asset allocation page. Thanks for making the change.

Laura
Laura
 
Posts: 7017
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:40 pm

Postby LadyGeek » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:04 pm

Refresh your browser page, it should be fine.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19596
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia

refresh

Postby Laura » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:08 pm

LadyGeek,

I did refresh several times but no luck. It still shows under the 1.

Laura
Laura
 
Posts: 7017
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:40 pm

Postby LadyGeek » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:18 pm

Laura,

It looks fine on my browser. I just told the wiki to refresh the page on its side. See if this works:

http://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Category ... tion=purge

"?action=purge" tells the wiki to do a refresh on its side.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19596
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Re: refresh

Postby sscritic » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:20 pm

Laura wrote:LadyGeek,

I did refresh several times but no luck. It still shows under the 1.

In order to speed up web browsing, web browsers are designed to download web pages and store them locally on your computer's hard drive in an area called "cache". Browser cache (also know as Internet cache) contains records of every item you have viewed or downloaded while Internet surfing. So when you visit the same page for a second time, the browser speeds up display time by loading the page locally from cache instead of downloading everything again.

You are probably seeing the same old page over and over.
sscritic
 
Posts: 21858
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:36 am

Re: refresh

Postby Barry Barnitz » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:28 pm

Laura wrote:LadyGeek,

I did refresh several times but no luck. It still shows under the 1.

Laura


Hi Laura:

Moving the page has removed the 130/30 page from all category listings in which it is placed, such as investing, asset allocation, asset classes,alternate asset classes.

It remains on the wiki all pages as a redirect page (redirect pages are italicized).

regards
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

Now it changed

Postby Laura » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:36 pm

I just think there is a delay. I just checked again and it changed. Thanks. Looks good.

Laura
Laura
 
Posts: 7017
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:40 pm

Mistake in IRA wiki

Postby raddle » Thu Feb 24, 2011 11:28 am

I was reading the wiki article on "Non-deductible Traditional IRA" and found a mistake. I don't think I can edit the wiki myself. It's in the section "Is a non-deductible traditional IRA right for me?"

The second sentence currently reads "... a Roth IRA is strictly better than a non-deductible Roth IRA ..."

It should read "... a Roth IRA is strictly better than a non-deductible traditional IRA ..."

regards,
raddle
 
Posts: 417
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 4:41 pm
Location: West TN

Postby LadyGeek » Thu Feb 24, 2011 5:18 pm

Thank you! CyberBob made the correction.

Wiki article link: Non-deductible Traditional IRA

You need an account to edit the wiki. If anyone is interested, just post to the Join the Wiki! thread (forum sticky), or send a PM as shown in the "Welcome to the Bogleheads' Wiki!" on the wiki's main page.
To some, the glass is half full. To others, the glass is half empty. To an engineer, it's twice the size it needs to be.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
 
Posts: 19596
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 6:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Postby sscritic » Wed Mar 02, 2011 12:48 pm

I think the wiki needs an article on brokerages. However, I am not prepared to write one.

I have seen many posts that think you own the shares you buy in a company or an ETF through your brokerage. This leads to thinking for example that your broker will sell your 0.235 shares left after you sell all your whole shares in an ETF. Of course, your broker can't sell your 0.235 shares any easier than you can. What your broker does is buy your shares from you. The broker owns 100 shares, of which 0.235 were allotted to you; the broker then buys that 0.235 share allotment back from you and allots it to itself or combines it with other shares it already owns and allots them to someone else. The same problem comes up when people try to understand how you can reinvest dividends in an ETF. You don't; your brokerage does, and then it allocates the shares purchased over the thousands of beneficial owners who reinvested "their dividends."

One reason for this confusion (as I see it) is that a search of the wiki doesn't give any results for "street name."

Why don't bogleheads know this term?
SEC wrote:Street Name

When you buy securities through a brokerage firm, most firms will automatically put your securities into "street name." This means your brokerage firm will hold your securities in its name or another nominee and not in your name, but your firm will keep records showing you as the real or "beneficial owner." You will not get a certificate, but will receive an account statement from your broker on at least a quarterly and annual basis showing your holdings.
sscritic
 
Posts: 21858
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 9:36 am

update wiki pages:

Postby Barry Barnitz » Wed Mar 02, 2011 1:38 pm

Hi ss:

I have made a start with the following stub:

Wiki article link: Street name .

regards,
Image | blb | December Birthday Celebration: Ludwig van Beethoven
User avatar
Barry Barnitz
Wiki Admin
 
Posts: 2663
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 11:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Local Chapters and Bogleheads Community

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest