Suggestions for the Wiki

[Barry Barnitz]

If you are not an editor of The Bogleheads Wiki, you can make your suggestions for a Wiki Topic, or present your text for a Wiki page in this Topic.

[retiredjg]

One of the things I hope happens is a "clean up" of the incredible amounts of information available here. It is absolutely overwhelming.

An example: There are several lists of recommended books. They could be combined. And it seems like newer books (e.g. Little Book of Commonsense Investing) don't always get added.

I'm willing to do some grunt work if there is no rush on these things. jg (I'll probably regret saying that....)

[mikenz]

http://www.diehards.org/wiki/index.php/Books:_Recommendations_and_Reviews

Help me and write some reviews!

[pkcrafter]

retiredjg,

I agree with you and I'll step right up to the plate and second your suggestion.

I'm willing to do some grunt work if there is no rush on these things. jg (I'll probably regret saying that....)

Yes, that's what I'm backing.

Seriously, I think you are right about the books. They need to be organized and it would be very helpful if there was a list of books most beneficial for beginners.

The organized list might be integrated with the reviews mikenz is working on.

Paul

[retiredjg]

retiredjg,

I'm willing to do some grunt work if there is no rush on these things. jg (I'll probably regret saying that....)

Yes, that's what I'm backing.

Gee Paul, you probably will come back me up by serving lemonade while I dig out that dying tree in my front yard, won't you? Oh thank you , thank you for the support!

Anyway, it appears to me that mikenz does have a list. I don't think it is finished yet. What he needs is reviews on the books on his list. Since I KNOW you've read more than I have and since I KNOW you know more than I do, why don't you do some reviews yourself? Meanwhile, I'll be in the yard with my poor dying tree...it should not be alone during this trying time. jg

[mikenz]

Yes, that list came from old M* board and the new forum (see links at bottom of page). I didn't include every last book I came across, but stuck with the well-known ones and ones that were mentioned multiple times mainly.

As far as writing reviews, what I did is try to do an objective look at the book and what it contains. Not too wordy, mainly a table of contents and brief overview. Then at the bottom put personal opinions about the book - that way a number of people can add their view on the book at the bottom without having to write a separate review. We could instead use the discussion feature for that?

[retiredjg]

Yes, that list came from old M* board and the new forum (see links at bottom of page). I didn't include every last book I came across, but stuck with the well-known ones and ones that were mentioned multiple times mainly.

As far as writing reviews, what I did is try to do an objective look at the book and what it contains. Not too wordy, mainly a table of contents and brief overview. Then at the bottom put personal opinions about the book - that way a number of people can add their view on the book at the bottom without having to write a separate review. We could instead use the discussion feature for that?

Mikenz, I'll try my hand at a review in the next few days. We'll see what comes of it. I'll be on the steep part of the learning curve with the software. Unfortunately, I've mostly read the same books as everyone else, so I don't know how helpful I'll be on this. I'll be back in touch. jg

[mikenz]

Not a problem, there are only 2 reviews and so many books. It's amazingly time-consuming (for me) to write a review, so help would be appreciated. Try to copy my format if it helps. PM any of us if you need help creating and linking a page.

[pkcrafter]

Mikenz and retiredjg,

I will see if I can learn how to work with the Wiki and then contribute something useful to the book project.

Paul

[retiredjg]

Mikenz and retiredjg,

I will see if I can learn how to work with the Wiki and then contribute something useful to the book project.

Paul

You take the hard books that I haven't read yet, ok?

[veryamusing]

Unfortunately, I've mostly read the same books as everyone else, so I don't know how helpful I'll be on this. I'll be back in touch. jg

Hey, retiredjg. When I read the above, I thought to myself just because we Bogleheads have read largely the same books, I bet we each take away something different. That's what I think could be great about the book reviews, if each person who has read the book chimed in on how it helped them (think: Amazon, how each book has many reviews).

Just a suggestion. I know this could get overwhelming fast.

[retiredjg]

Hey, retiredjg. When I read the above, I thought to myself just because we Bogleheads have read largely the same books, I bet we each take away something different. That's what I think could be great about the book reviews, if each person who has read the book chimed in on how it helped them (think: Amazon, how each book has many reviews).

You're absolutely right. Just that some books have been read by so few people, I hope those books will get a review or two rather than none. In fact, for those of you who have read some of the less read books, you should consider it an obligation to review them! (Anyone out there subject to being guilted into action? Nah, I didn't think so...)

And we do take away different things. Example, 4 Pillars would have been a terrible book for me if it had been my first book. However, since it was my about the 4th or 5th, I thought it was great. Others have had a completely different reaction. New people need to know these things.

Now, should I cut the grass or start a review...jg

[mikenz]

First, if you are not comfortable with the wiki, PM me with a review and I'll format and post it for you.

Second, if you look at the two reviews I did, I tried to be objective at the top: brief overview, table of contents, brief summary of each section/chapter of the book.

Then at the bottom there is a final section Reader Comments (I think), where I started it off putting mikenz - I though this book was really good.... etc. So the idea is rather than having to write a whole new review, people can chime in with their impressions, yes sort of like Amazon. If there is something more factual they want to add, they could edit the original review if they like (that's the point of trying to make the main section of the review factual and objective as possible). Having multiple reviews of the same book would be ok too if it works better, but it's a big job to write one IMO. Far easier to just put at the bottom - retiredjg - I liked this book, but not suitable as a first investment book...

Finally, if you have a book in mind that you plan to review, mention it here and I'll do other ones. I have many of the books in the list and plan to start writing more reviews any day now...

[Ken Schwartz]

I've begun maintaining the Current events page on the Bogleheads Wiki. I'm interested in receiving suggestions on a continuing basis for specific content items. (Bogleheads who obtain wiki access may, of course, add stuff themselves. Just PM me with your access request.) Please see the current events talk page for my initial thoughts on what we might include.

[PiperWarrior]

Shall we "wikify" our reference library?

For example, I don't think it makes sense to have both of

- Treasury Inflation Protected Securities in the wiki and
- TIPS in the reference library.

We can just merge them. (Currently, the former points to the latter.) Barry and others do a great job, but without them, we cannot even fix broken links or typos in the reference library. Also, it's possible that somebody might have a great idea about reorganizing a list of papers (say, categorizing them into "for" TIPS and "against" TIPS or whatever). He/she cannot do that right now.

The forum interface is nice for live exchanges, but they are not really great for library purposes. (Yes, I do understand that the reference library predates the wiki.)

I apologize in advance if this has been suggested before.

I'm willing to do the conversion work, but I'd like some general agreement before I do that.

[Barry Barnitz]

Shall we "wikify" our reference library?

For example, I don't think it makes sense to have both of

- Treasury Inflation Protected Securities in the wiki and
- TIPS in the reference library.

We can just merge them. (Currently, the former points to the latter.) Barry and others do a great job, but without them, we cannot even fix broken links or typos in the reference library. Also, it's possible that somebody might have a great idea about reorganizing a list of papers (say, categorizing them into "for" TIPS and "against" TIPS or whatever). He/she cannot do that right now.

The forum interface is nice for live exchanges, but they are not really great for library purposes. (Yes, I do understand that the reference library predates the wiki.)

I apologize in advance if this has been suggested before.

I'm willing to do the conversion work, but I'd like some general agreement before I do that.

Wikifying the Reference Library is a good long range project. Tonight, after work, I will try and draft an administrative page on the wiki that will list reference posts and provide a checklist for wiki migration.

[PiperWarrior]

Wikifying the Reference Library is a good long range project. Tonight, after work, I will try and draft an administrative page on the wiki that will list reference posts and provide a checklist for wiki migration.

Excellent! I'll monitor Recent changes. Thanks!

[PiperWarrior]

Barry and others,

After we wikify one Reference Library topic, what shall we do? I am afraid that somebody might add to a Reference Library topic after I finish wikifying the topic.

Shall we lock the topic?

Shall we put a note in the topic, saying that "This topic is now maintained at Such Such Wiki Page"?

Shall we do both?

Shall we continue to accept contributions to wikified Reference Library topics?

One thing that's marginally an issue is that the Reference Library can accept any additional message to the existing topics from any forum member. In contrast, the wiki seems to have an additional hurdle. Specifically, you have to become a forum member first and then apply for a wiki user account. I am hoping that this hurdle is minor. Thoughts?

[UKbloke]

Why is it a problem that both TIPS and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities have a Wiki page? Some people search for TIPS, other for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities... let it be!

A wiki may seem chaotic, but so is the market. Chaos is order!

[PiperWarrior]

Why is it a problem that both TIPS and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities have a Wiki page? Some people search for TIPS, other for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities... let it be!

Well, we don't want to have two wiki pages on the same subject. FWIW, TIPS is redirected to Treasury Inflation Protected Securities these days.

[CyberBob]

Why is it a problem that both TIPS and Treasury Inflation Protected Securities have a Wiki page? Some people search for TIPS, other for Treasury Inflation Protected Securities... let it be!

A wiki may seem chaotic, but so is the market. Chaos is order!

There isn't any problem with that kind of thing at the wiki. The wiki handles that situation quite smoothly. I believe what PiperWarrior is trying to avoid is confusion between this library forum and the wiki. And he brings up a very good point. Where should people be directed for reference material? Here or the wiki? The wiki is actually much better suited for a library-type reference than is a forum. But, the library forum is right here and available and many people probably don't even know about the wiki.

Bob

[Barry Barnitz]

Barry and others,

After we wikify one Reference Library topic, what shall we do? I am afraid that somebody might add to a Reference Library topic after I finish wikifying the topic.

Shall we lock the topic?

Shall we put a note in the topic, saying that "This topic is now maintained at Such Such Wiki Page"?

Shall we do both?

Shall we continue to accept contributions to wikified Reference Library topics?

One thing that's marginally an issue is that the Reference Library can accept any additional message to the existing topics from any forum member. In contrast, the wiki seems to have an additional hurdle. Specifically, you have to become a forum member first and then apply for a wiki user account. I am hoping that this hurdle is minor. Thoughts?

For the present, I have done the following for Library posts that have been incorporated into the Wiki:

1. On the Reference Library page, I have placed a (-->Wiki) marker in the title of each Topic which has been transferred or incorporated into the wiki.

2. I have placed a prominent announcement and link in the heading of each wikified Reference Library page. Example

[PiperWarrior]

For the present, I have done the following for Library posts that have been incorporated into the Wiki:

1. On the Reference Library page, I have placed a (-->Wiki) marker in the title of each Topic which has been transferred or incorporated into the wiki.

2. I have placed a prominent announcement and link in the heading of each wikified Reference Library page. Example

Great! Thanks you very much!

I think the note at the top of each wikified topic is very clear.

[linenfort]

Are there plans to include initials as searchable terms? For example,
in the future will someone be able to type TLH into the wiki search box
and be re redirected to the Tax Loss Harvesting Page?

Thanks.

(Sorry, PiperWarrior, I PM'ed you about this just now b/c I hadn't
found this thread).

[PiperWarrior]

Are there plans to include initials as searchable terms? For example,
in the future will someone be able to type TLH into the wiki search box
and be re redirected to the Tax Loss Harvesting Page?

Mediawiki has something called "redirect", but so maybe we can use that to redirect TLH to Tax Loss Harvesting. Do you know something in this area?

(Sorry, PiperWarrior, I PM'ed you about this just now b/c I hadn't
found this thread).

No problem.

By the way, if you would like to be a wiki editor, please send a PM to Barry. You can contribute to the wiki in a variety of ways. Investment contents are of course welcome. Fixing typos, making constructive criticisms, reorganizing things, etc are also welcome, too. You don't have to be an investment expert to contribute to a wiki. If you fell the TLH page needs more contents for example, you can leave notes on the talk page of the TLH page.

[linenfort]

I think you can infer from my posts thus far that I am not qualified
to add to investment content. But, simple editing for spelling
and grammar is a possibility.

Mediawiki has something called "redirect"

Haven't used it, but I'll definitely look into it.

Thanks!

[linenfort]

...
in the future will someone be able to type TLH into the wiki search box
and be re redirected to the Tax Loss Harvesting Page?
...

Implemented, I see. That was fast!

[SamLJ]

With regards to TLH, how about including a list of recommended/similar funds that do not trigger a wash sale for commonly held VG mutual funds? The forum seems to have a heavy load of people asking TLH related questions.

[PiperWarrior]

With regards to TLH, how about including a list of recommended/similar funds that do not trigger a wash sale for commonly held VG mutual funds? The forum seems to have a heavy load of people asking TLH related questions.

Thank you for a suggestion.

I'm hesitating about listing TLH options. There are no definite guidelines about substantially identical securities. I'm happy to mention on the forum what I personally do, but I don't want to make it sound official. Sure, the wiki comes with a disclaimer, but I am a bit uncomfortable taking advantage of it to say not very credible things.

[SamLJ]

I'm hesitating about listing TLH options. There are no definite guidelines about substantially identical securities. I'm happy to mention on the forum what I personally do, but I don't want to make it sound official. Sure, the wiki comes with a disclaimer, but I am a bit uncomfortable taking advantage of it to say not very credible things.

Maybe we could have a general thread on the subject in the forum that might include these suggestions that we can refer people to in this case.

It is clear that some strategies definitely will not trigger a wash sale, such as exchanging Total Stock Market for S&P 500 and Extended Market in a 4:1 ratio, but I guess the line between FTSE All-World Ex-US and Total International is blurrier. TSM and FTSE All-World Ex-US are the two main funds suggested for taxable portfolios here so I think this is an important point that would be great to have some kind of official IRS clarification on (especially for the case of TLHing FTSE All-World Ex-US).

[retiredjg]

With regards to TLH, how about including a list of recommended/similar funds that do not trigger a wash sale for commonly held VG mutual funds? The forum seems to have a heavy load of people asking TLH related questions.

Thank you for a suggestion.

I'm hesitating about listing TLH options. There are no definite guidelines about substantially identical securities. I'm happy to mention on the forum what I personally do, but I don't want to make it sound official. Sure, the wiki comes with a disclaimer, but I am a bit uncomfortable taking advantage of it to say not very credible things.

I've wondered about this too since this is one of the frequent questions that simply cannot be answered. I've wondered about suggestions for replacement funds that would satisfy the different arguments. By this I mean present an argument and then follow that with a chart of replacement funds that would be acceptable under that argument. Follow that with the next argument and another chart. Basically, just presenting the facts of each argument and let each investor pick what s/he is comfortable with.

It would be helpful to many, I believe, if the wiki contained a collection or summary of the "substantially similar" discussions. Especially containing LH2004's input on the Supreme Court and Cottage Savings. I believe LH's opinion is probably most likely to be correct, but it seems to get forgotten and people keep trying to find a common sense definition of "substantially identical" rather than a legal definition. Especially when the Fairmark author expressed the opinion about graphs laying on top of each other! A good example of trying to use common sense rather than legal precedent.

It is so frustrating to see the "substantially identical" dead horse being flogged on a regular basis without ever reaching a conclusion. I'm sure many would like to just say "read this discussion in the Wiki" rather than go through it again and again.

While I'm here, I'd like to express appreciation to the many people who have made these incredible contributions to the Wiki. It is a very impressive body of knowledge and you folks should be commended! jg

[PiperWarrior]

It would be helpful to many, I believe, if the wiki contained a collection or summary of the "substantially similar" discussions. Especially containing LH2004's input on the Supreme Court and Cottage Savings. I believe LH's opinion is probably most likely to be correct, but it seems to get forgotten and people keep trying to find a common sense definition of "substantially identical" rather than a legal definition. Especially when the Fairmark author expressed the opinion about graphs laying on top of each other! A good example of trying to use common sense rather than legal precedent.

Would you like to take a stab and create a wiki page, listing various interpretations from IRS Publications, LH2004, fairmark, etc? For a starter, you could create a page containing links to relevant things. You don't have to write much beyond headings.

[retiredjg]

Would you like to take a stab and create a wiki page, listing various interpretations from IRS Publications, LH2004, fairmark, etc?

Groan. I don't really think I'm the best person to do this. LH2004, are you around?

[Barry Barnitz]

Would you like to take a stab and create a wiki page, listing various interpretations from IRS Publications, LH2004, fairmark, etc?

Groan. I don't really think I'm the best person to do this. LH2004, are you around?

jg, check your pm's

regards,
Barry

[JustAsking]

Folks,

I'm new to the forum (within the past few days) and am working my way through the wiki. Although it's great to have the info in one place, the first thing I notice is that the structure is really burdensome--there are category pages and subcategory pages and sub-sub-category pages, each with links to click. It's like a maze, and you spend a comparatively large proportion of time on overhead (clicking and navigating) rather than reading. This discourages users.

It might not be so bad (not good, but not so bad) if it were possible to go from one page to the next sequentially. As is, to get to the next page at any level, you have to go up one level and then back down. This is slow, inconvenient, and a recipe for RSI.

I know you're using a CMS that imposes certain limitations, but would it be possible to do something more like a Windows Explorer setup, with a tree in the left nav bar that makes the organization self-evident and allows us to just click directly on topics we want to see? I understand that you're trying to provide expansion room for the future, but a) it should be convenient to use now too, and b) if it's cumbersome and people abandon it, options for the future will be irrelevant.

I also want to mention some related issues about this site's search function, which doesn't seem to work the way it does on other forums (even those using the same software). First, I'm not clear on the difference between "Search for any terms or use query as entered" and "Search for all terms." Doesn't "query as entered" mean "all terms"? I've tried with and without quotes, but it doesn't seem to return exact phrases. Neither option seems to make a difference. Also, most search engines now search for all terms by default, since this is the most common type of search and eliminates the need to enter Boolean operators (AND, OR). If you just want a single term, you can enter it (or them, sequentially).

Second, on other boards, the search typically highlights the terms in yellow and takes you to the first one. Here, even if you select "Display Posts" and 1000 characters, it doesn't do that--you still have to open each one and scroll to find the term.

Third, I like see 1000 (or more) characters of each post rather than just the titles. This is often the default on other boards, but not here--I have to choose it each time. I also can't set it in my Profile. Is it possible to give us the option to do that?

Thanks,
JA

[PiperWarrior]

I'm new to the forum (within the past few days) and am working my way through the wiki. Although it's great to have the info in one place, the first thing I notice is that the structure is really burdensome--there are category pages and subcategory pages and sub-sub-category pages, each with links to click. It's like a maze, and you spend a comparatively large proportion of time on overhead (clicking and navigating) rather than reading. This discourages users.

It might not be so bad (not good, but not so bad) if it were possible to go from one page to the next sequentially. As is, to get to the next page at any level, you have to go up one level and then back down. This is slow, inconvenient, and a recipe for RSI.

How about something like this?

If you go to Oxygen and scroll down all the way down to the bottom, you can see the periodic table. This lets you navigate "horizontally" without having to go back up to a parent page.

This kind of box is very useful for things "at the same level" like a bunch of mutual funds, various forms of indexes (market cap, fundamental, socially responsible, etc), but it's tough to group logically unrelated things this way.

I know you're using a CMS that imposes certain limitations, but would it be possible to do something more like a Windows Explorer setup, with a tree in the left nav bar that makes the organization self-evident and allows us to just click directly on topics we want to see? I understand that you're trying to provide expansion room for the future, but a) it should be convenient to use now too, and b) if it's cumbersome and people abandon it, options for the future will be irrelevant.

I understand what you mean. I'll take notes. I know we can add a flat list to the left pane. I don't know if we can have a tree-like structure there.

I also want to mention some related issues about this site's search function, which doesn't seem to work the way it does on other forums (even those using the same software). First, I'm not clear on the difference between "Search for any terms or use query as entered" and "Search for all terms." Doesn't "query as entered" mean "all terms"? I've tried with and without quotes, but it doesn't seem to return exact phrases. Neither option seems to make a difference. Also, most search engines now search for all terms by default, since this is the most common type of search and eliminates the need to enter Boolean operators (AND, OR). If you just want a single term, you can enter it (or them, sequentially).

Second, on other boards, the search typically highlights the terms in yellow and takes you to the first one. Here, even if you select "Display Posts" and 1000 characters, it doesn't do that--you still have to open each one and scroll to find the term.

Third, I like see 1000 (or more) characters of each post rather than just the titles. This is often the default on other boards, but not here--I have to choose it each time. I also can't set it in my Profile. Is it possible to give us the option to do that?

I think your best bet is google and use "site:bogleheads.org blah" for now.

[PiperWarrior]

JustAsking,

I've discovered something called Extension:TreeAndMenu, which lets you have a Windows Explorer-style navigation.

As a test bed, I added "horizontal" navigation at the bottom of all 529 pages like Alabama 529 Plan. What do you think? You don't have to go back to the category page to navigate "horizontally."

[tetractys]

How about pointers to important IRS.gov info?

Just noticed this good news for those in the <25% tax bracket: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ar01.html#d0e67

What's New for 2008

Maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain reduced. In tax years beginning after 2007, the 5% maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain is reduced to 0 (zero)%. Thus, qualified dividends and net capital gain are not taxed if the regular tax rate that would apply to them is lower than 25%.

Thanks for the Wiki, BTW! -- Tet

[PiperWarrior]

How about pointers to important IRS.gov info?

Just noticed this good news for those in the <25% tax bracket: http://www.irs.gov/publications/p550/ar01.html#d0e67

What's New for 2008

Maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain reduced. In tax years beginning after 2007, the 5% maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain is reduced to 0 (zero)%. Thus, qualified dividends and net capital gain are not taxed if the regular tax rate that would apply to them is lower than 25%.

Thanks. I think we've got that covered in Tax News Sources, which links to Publication 553 (4/2008), Highlights of 2007 Tax Changes, which in turn contains:

Maximum Tax Rate on Qualified Dividends and Net Capital Gain Reduced

For tax years beginning after 2007, the 5% maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain (the excess of net long-term capital gain over net short-term capital loss) is reduced to 0%. This reduction applies for both regular tax and AMT. The 15% maximum tax rate on qualified dividends and net capital gain has not changed.

The problem is that it may not necessarily be easy to get to the wiki page.

[Ducks]

I suggest a list of boglehead recommended podcasts. I'd be happy to create a list if others also think this is a good idea.

[Ducks]

I added the list of podcasts, gleaned from this recent thread:
viewtopic.php?p=314938

I am ridiculously happy that I'm able to help with this wiki. So if anybody has anything else they'd like me to wikify, I'd be glad to.

[Mel Lindauer]

I added the list of podcasts, gleaned from this recent thread:
viewtopic.php?p=314938

I am ridiculously happy that I'm able to help with this wiki. So if anybody has anything else they'd like me to wikify, I'd be glad to.

Hi Ducks:

Thanks for helping make the wiki even more useful/helpful. I'd like to suggest that you become a regular contributor to the wiki, since it's such a great asset to both forum members and other investors in general, and Barry needs all the help he (and his small crew) can get.

Best regards,

Mel

[Ducks]

You bet, Mel. I'm in.

[Mel Lindauer]

You bet, Mel. I'm in.

That's great, Ducks. Hopefully more and more members will become contributors to what will certainly be one of the Boglehead community's lasting legacies.

Regards,

Mel

[Barry Barnitz]

Ducks:

Thank you very much for the contribution.

regards,
Barry

[Ducks]

You're welcome, Barry. I'm looking forward to doing more. If you have a project for me, I'm all ears.

[travelfar]

It would be helpful to organize information on Asset Location.

A few resources to start with (I cannot post links yet):

Investopedia "The Importance Of Asset Location"
by Ken Hawkins

Money "3 rules of investing: Location, location, location:
Choosing an asset allocation is only the first step. Your asset location can be just as important to your investments."
By The Mole, Money Magazine's undercover financial planner
April 9, 2008: 6:05 AM EDT

Morningstart "The Beauty of Asset Location: Where to hold stocks and bonds for maximum benefit."
By Sue Stevens, CFA, CFP, CPA | 01-19-06 | 06:00 AM

FPA Journal "Asset Location: A Generic Framework for Maximizing After-Tax Wealth"
Gobind Daryanani, Ph.D., CFP®, and Chris Cordaro, CFP

THE JOURNAL OF FINANCE • VOL. LIX, NO. 3 • JUNE 2004
"Optimal Asset Location and Allocation with Taxable and Tax-Deferred Investing"
ROBERT M. DAMMON, CHESTER S. SPATT, and HAROLD H. ZHANG

Robert M. Dammon and Chester S. Spatt, Carnegie Mellon University
Harold H. Zhang, University of North Carolina
"Optimal Asset Location and Allocation with Taxable and Tax-Deferred Investing"

Jennifer Huang, MIT - Sloan School
"axable or Tax-Deferred Account? Portfolio Decision with Multiple Investment Goals"

Hayne E. Leland, Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley
"ptimal Portfolio Implementation With Transaction Costs and Capital Gains Taxes"

John B. Shoven and Clemens Sialm, Stanford University
"Asset Location in Tax-Deferred and Conventional Savings Accounts"

Brad M. Barber and Terrance Odean, Graduate School of Management, University of California, Davis
" Are Individual Investors Tax Savvy? Asset Location Evidence from Retail and Discount Brokerage Accounts"

Daniel Bergstresser, MIT
James Poterba, MIT, Hoover Institution, and NBER
" Asset allocation and Asset Location Decisions: Evidence from the Survey of Consumer Finances"

The Blogeheads wiki "Principles of Tax-Efficient Fund Placement"

[Mel Lindauer]

Hi travelfar:

Welcome to the forum!

Perhaps you'd like to volunteer to help out with the Wiki. You could start by doing what you've suggested. All help with the wiki is really appreciated. You can PM Barry for more information (simply click on the "PM" button in his post above).

Regards,

Mel

[maxrottersman]

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

[speedbump101]

I'd like to suggest that Jason Zweig's paper on updating Benjamin Graham's 'Intelligent Investor' ((for Harper Collins) be added to the Wiki http://www.usd.edu/business/coyotecapit ... essons.pdf