zhiwiller wrote:I'd love to help on this.
......
Otherwise, it is a fantastic outline and should be a great book with all the superstars on the board. I'd volunteer for the section on common investing mistakes or starting an investing voyage in your 20s if the editors will have me. Keep in touch, I don't check every day anymore.
Zack
Chapter 10 Basic Investment Principals
Diversification
Rebalancing
Low cost
Tax management
Mel Lindauer wrote:
In the meantime, we're gathering ideas/comments/suggestions on the preliminary book outline before finalizing it.
Regards,
Mel
Grandma wrote:What a great collaboration! I will be anxious to purchase my copy. Any rough idea yet of an expected publishing date?
Best, Grandma
EmergDoc wrote:Mel Lindauer wrote:
In the meantime, we're gathering ideas/comments/suggestions on the preliminary book outline before finalizing it.
Regards,
Mel
My first suggestion is that you/we spell "too" correctly in the title to section one.
i.e. It is never too early to start planning.
My first suggestion is that you/we spell "too" correctly in the title to section one.
Rodc wrote:It seems heavy on investing and light on planning, although of course I haven't seen the text.
Rick Ferri wrote:Rodc wrote:It seems heavy on investing and light on planning, although of course I haven't seen the text.
There is no text, yet.
At this point we are hoping for specific chapter suggestions to improve on the proposed outline above. The main focus of this book is retirement planning rather than investing. The second Bogleheads book should complement the first Bogleheads book, not replace it.
Rick Ferri
savermike wrote:I can probably kick in with proofreading and editing. Does the publisher have a house style guide? Does the project?
Probably isn't fair to start chiming in at this early stage. Nonetheless: worth pointing out that you don't have to retire if you don't want to.
Mike
What is striking is the gulf that exists between how financial economists approach the problem of finding optimal retirement strategies and the rules of thumb typically utilized by financial advisors.
Which has lead Scholz and others to conclude:Government data released on July 29 show that over the past six months personal saving has averaged a negative 0.9% of gross domestic product—the lowest level since the Depression, and the latest step in a long decline from 8% in the 1960s to 5% in 1990-94 to 0.5% by 1998. Although alarms of a crisis in savings have been sounded repeatedly over the past 20 years, the data are poorly understood, and the latest downturn has led to an astonishing variety of contradictory views....
To start with, the data on personal savings are part of a broader national income accounting framework whose goal is to measure production and the income arising from that production. This measure is fine for national income accounting, but not very useful for the other purposes for which it is so often used. For instance, personal saving is a poor measure of how much the nation as a whole is saving….
Nor is personal saving even a good measure of how much households are saving. The official measure does not correct for inflation; it treats housing differently from other durable goods; it treats private and government pensions differently, and it does not adjust fully for taxes. The distinction between personal and corporate saving is also arbitrary: Dividend payments and share repurchases both involve corporations shifting funds to households, but they have different effects on personal saving.
These seeming technicalities make a big difference. John Sabelhaus and I recently found that while personal saving fell from 5.7% of GDP in the 1970s to less than zero at present, a measure that conformed more closely to economic concepts of saving by including businesses and households and adjusting for the other factors above showed saving at 9% of GDP in the 1970s and 7% in 1998. These findings indicate that although saving has declined, the dropoff is much smaller, and the current level of saving is much higher, than the official figures show.
The official figures also omit capital gains...
But should gains be included as saving? In some contexts, the answer is obvious. For an individual contemplating his retirement account, it makes perfect sense to include accruing capital gains as individual saving.
How will the Bogleheads book decide about this controversy about measuring the decline in the US savings rate? Has it declined from 5% to less than zero, or has it declined from roughly 9% to 7%? Or has it declined even less than that because of the omission of capital gains? It makes a big difference.It seems clear to us from the discussion in Gale and Sabelhaus (1999) and elsewhere, that one should not make inferences about the saving behavior of individual households based on the aggregate NIPA or Flow of Funds personal saving rate. Thus, they are badly flawed indictors of the degree to which Americans are adequately preparing for retirement.
We expect the "The Bogleheads' Guide to Retirement Planning" will be published and available for sale before the end of 2009. It will be a great Christmas present for friends and relatives--especially if you are one of its contributors.
Return to Investing - Theory, News & General
Users browsing this forum: IlikeJackB, kenschmidt, red5 and 40 guests