Suggestions for the Wiki

US Local Chapters, Wiki, and general Bogleheads community discussion, news, events, and announcements.
Post Reply
User avatar
abuss368
Posts: 16122
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by abuss368 » Sat Oct 05, 2019 8:37 pm

Taylor Larimore wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:36 pm
Barry:

nisiprius posted 180 links to Jack Bogle's speeches and op-eds from Mr. Bogle's website (which may soon disappear). I feel that it is very important that these speeches and articles be preserved and I don't know any better place than our Boglehead wiki under the "Bogle" topic.

This is a link to the links:

viewtopic.php?t=288548#p4708621

Best wishes.
Taylor
Thanks Taylor! It is important to preserve Mr. Bogle’s teachings.
John C. Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio: Total Stock & Total Bond. "Simplicity is the master key to financial success."

nawkboy
Posts: 6
Joined: Wed Aug 28, 2019 7:12 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by nawkboy » Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:24 pm

I suggest some posts on the details on the nuisances of obtaining access to high quality medical insurance. The optimal solutions change based on income level and personal situation, yet these fall into some obvious categories.

Rather than get caught up in the politics I would suggest any set of wiki pages be focused on the actionable facts people need to help them make good choices in their own situation.

There is a lot of complexity here, and yet there are very few well organized unbiased references people can use to take action. In many cases, just having well organized links to various external resources could help. At least in the case of highly compensated independent consultants the information gap is particularly wide. The vast majority of advice on-line is focused on lower income citizens looking at ACA plans, or on small companies with a hand-full of employees. I suspect the insurance lobby has worked hard to ensure most states define small group as two or more, explicitly excluding a spouse.

=====================
A boglehead forum post lists the following categories:

1.short term insurance, which is getting a boost from the current administrations so you can get multi year guaranteed renewals. Pros: cheap, good networks; Cons: preexisting exclusions, banned in some states

2. Ministry or similar cost sharing plans. Pros: cheaper; Cons: unclear how they might handle very expensive claims.

3. Self insurance. Pros: very cheap, good incentives for healthy lifestyle; Cons: more risky, probably requires $1-2M for worst cases

4. Group insurance thru association, separate LLC, or similar. Pros: reasonable prices, good networks available; Cons: modest additional expense in entity setup or intermediary fees

5. ACA bronze plans. Pros: good if you’re poor, old or sick; Cons: limited networks, often no PPO options, very expensive for value without subsidies.

Based on my experience, option 4 would benefit from several sub-categories. I might suggest:
4a: Single employee, officer only corporation (TriNet for national, regional PEOs when appropriate)
4b: Several employees
4c: States with small group defined as one.

There should also be an option 0 for riding on the coverage of a spouse or parent.

There could also be a section covering international travel, both short-term and long-term expat coverage.

======================
In my case I am a moderately high income consultant operating as a single shingle throughout the US. The only way I have found to access high quality medical insurance without pre-existing condition restrictions is via a PEO arrangement. As it turns out, TriNet is the only PEO supporting single employee corporations with a national reach. Leveraging a PEO such as TriNet provides access to the sort of coverage typical of corporate America with access to better doctor networks. Even an Aetna HSA compatible high deductible plan for my wife and I runs around $1200/month, yet that is typical of COBRA rates I have seen from my past employers.

With two employees (not including spouse), I would have access to small group health insurance. If I lived in one of a small set of states that define small group as one, I would be able to access small group insurance even as a single shingle.

With two or three employees there are several national PEOs worth considering. Paychex's PEO requires at least five employees, and ADP's PEO requires at least ten employees.

I can access ACA plans, yet my experience has been the most expensive ACA plans available to me have very poor doctor networks. Although the ACAA plans are far from ideal, at least they don't have pre-existing medical condition restrictions. For those with a lower income, the government subsidizes a portion of the premiums. So although the ACA plans are less than ideal, they remain better than nothing.

The gap insurance plans all exclude pre-existing conditions, and so don't work for my family.

Most of the other consultants I know are typically riding off the coverage a spouse with a full-time corporate job. Very few are aware of the PEO trick I am using.

Other than overall complexity, there is one major disadvantage of a PEO. The typical corporate insurance providers (Hartford, etc.) apparently won't write an umbrella policy with a PEO in the mix. Theft, errors & omissions, and similar corporate coverage is readily available. Similarly, the PEO provides workers compensation insurance. To date, I have not had a client require an umbrella policy for contract compliance. If that ever comes up, I will have to obtain a waiver from the client. I suspect the reality is PEO arrangements are sufficiently common that corporate America has avoided requiring vendors supply unobtainable umbrella coverage, at least for typical relatively low injury risk office jobs. Any corporate insurance broker can explain the umbrella coverage constraint far better than I.

rsasub
Posts: 21
Joined: Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:55 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by rsasub » Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:51 pm

I have a suggestion for updating the page:
Non-US investor's guide to navigating US tax traps (https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Non-US_ ... x_traps#A4)

The current recommendation is if you plan to invest over USD60K in US, don't. This is due to high estate taxes. However according to this forum (https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2531401) it concludes:
So my laymans reading of that is that neither state will impose a higher tax than would be attributable to it's own citizens.
Furthermore, according to the IRS Estate Tax webpage (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-bu ... estate-tax):
Most relatively simple estates (cash, publicly traded securities, small amounts of other easily valued assets, and no special deductions or elections, or jointly held property) do not require the filing of an estate tax return. A filing is required for estates with combined gross assets and prior taxable gifts exceeding $1,500,000 in 2004 - 2005; $2,000,000 in 2006 - 2008; $3,500,000 for decedents dying in 2009; and $5,000,000 or more for decedent's dying in 2010 and 2011 (note: there are special rules for decedents dying in 2010); $5,120,000 in 2012, $5,250,000 in 2013, $5,340,000 in 2014, $5,430,000 in 2015, $5,450,000 in 2016, $5,490,000 in 2017, $11,180,000 in 2018, and $11,400,000 in 2019.

Beginning January 1, 2011, estates of decedents survived by a spouse may elect to pass any of the decedent’s unused exemption to the surviving spouse. This election is made on a timely filed estate tax return for the decedent with a surviving spouse. Note that simplified valuation provisions apply for those estates without a filing requirement absent the portability election.


This seems to indicate that (at least for 2019) as long as the estate is less than USD11,400,000 doesn't require an estate tax return (i.e. not liable for estate taxes?). I'm not fully sure of the further paragraph at the bottom.

Spirit Rider
Posts: 11932
Joined: Fri Mar 02, 2007 2:39 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by Spirit Rider » Tue Oct 08, 2019 8:58 pm

Keep in mind, that forum thread is only talking about Australia and I have no idea what the U.S. - Australia tax treaty treatment of estate taxes are.

Additionally, there are only 15 countries including Australia where the U.S. tax treaty (if there even is one) includes any estate tax provisions.

It is not practical for the Wiki to address all variances, especially when it does not apply the vast majority of countries.

At best the wiki should only refer people to the relevant tax treaties.

TedSwippet
Posts: 2520
Joined: Mon Jun 04, 2007 4:19 pm
Location: UK

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by TedSwippet » Thu Oct 10, 2019 3:48 am

rsasub wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:51 pm
I have a suggestion for updating the page:
Non-US investor's guide to navigating US tax traps (https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Non-US_ ... x_traps#A4)

The current recommendation is if you plan to invest over USD60K in US, don't. This is due to high estate taxes. However according to this forum (https://forums.whirlpool.net.au/archive/2531401) it concludes:
So my laymans reading of that is that neither state will impose a higher tax than would be attributable to it's own citizens.
...

This seems to indicate that (at least for 2019) as long as the estate is less than USD11,400,000 doesn't require an estate tax return (i.e. not liable for estate taxes?). I'm not fully sure of the further paragraph at the bottom.
Thanks for the note. The forum discussion you reference is specific to Australia, but the wiki page section that you cited is written for US non-residents in countries without a US estate tax treaty ("You are a US nonresident alien with poor or nonexistent US tax treaty coverage").

Australia has both income tax and estate tax treaties with the US. If you follow the flowchart through for Australia specifically, it should lead you instead to this section: "A6. Choose your funds and ETFs for best local tax outcome".

Australian investors do not have to worry about confiscatory US estate tax above $60k of US holdings, but only when they reach $11mm or so in total worldwide assets. Investors in many other countries do, though. Without an estate tax treaty, US estate taxes begin at just $60k for US assets held by nonresident aliens. The list of countries with a US estate tax treaty is particularly short.
rsasub wrote:
Tue Oct 08, 2019 7:51 pm
Furthermore, according to the IRS Estate Tax webpage (https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-bu ... estate-tax): ...
This is the IRS estate tax page for US citizens and residents. The IRS estate tax pages for nonresident aliens are here:

https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-bu ... ted-states
https://www.irs.gov/individuals/interna ... ax-returns

simas
Posts: 465
Joined: Wed Apr 04, 2007 5:50 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by simas » Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:05 pm

Would there be enough value/interested to put together a US centric wiki for solo 401k plan and after tax non-Roth contributions (aka Megabackdoor)?

I watched the following thread viewtopic.php?f=2&t=292833&sid=411c912b ... b2345edab7 and I think the information would be valuable to the future if people can find it.

- what is solo 401k plan (and how it is different from say IRA)
- what is third party administrator (TPA) and when provider is or isn't one
- what are responsibilities upon employee (self employed ,etc) adopting such plan
- mechanics of calculations limiting various contributions (and IRS links to relevant publications)
etc

User avatar
FiveK
Posts: 7859
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:43 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by FiveK » Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:29 pm

simas wrote:
Sun Oct 20, 2019 2:05 pm
Would there be enough value/interested to put together a US centric wiki for solo 401k plan and after tax non-Roth contributions (aka Megabackdoor)?
One could modify Solo 401(k) plan - Bogleheads and/or After-tax 401(k) - Bogleheads.

User avatar
dratkinson
Posts: 4724
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: Centennial CO

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by dratkinson » Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:59 am

Suggest restructuring Wiki pages related to planning for children so all are accessed from one top-level page.


Suggest new top-level page “Accounts for children”, that links to:

--“Custodial savings account and custodial Roth IRA account for children” (re-title topic)
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Accounts_for_children

--“Uniform Gift to Minors Act (UGMA) and Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA)” (re-title topic)
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/UTMA

--“529 plan account transfers”
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/529_pla ... _transfers

--“Coverdell Education Saving Account
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Coverde ... s_Accounts

--“Kiddie tax”
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Kiddie_tax

Wealth transfer insurance
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Wealth_ ... _insurance



Page UTMA only links to existing UGMA page.
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/w/index.php? ... edirect=no


Looked but didn’t immediately find any other Wiki pages related to planning for children. If I missed any, then suggest including them also.

Why?

I thought of this because the suggestions presented in current forum topic:
“non-education accounts for kids”: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=293574
would require multiple Wiki searches to find.

So suggest restructuring the Wiki so all children topics are found with one search.
d.r.a., not dr.a. | I'm a novice investor, you are forewarned.

DesertMan
Posts: 146
Joined: Tue Dec 07, 2010 12:54 pm

Could someone please update the wiki “Cash Equivalents” page?

Post by DesertMan » Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:49 pm

It would be nice to see a good discussion of the benefits of having a cash allocation:
[*] reduce temptation to market time or deviate from allocation
[*] have higher deductibles on insurance policies which is as good as tax free income
[*] get good returns with reward checking accounts, prepaid cards etc.
[*] Get bonuses for opening accounts

Could someone with edit privileges please consider? Thanks.

mervinj7
Posts: 1161
Joined: Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:10 pm

Re: Could someone please update the wiki “Cash Equivalents” page?

Post by mervinj7 » Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:12 pm

DesertMan wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:49 pm
It would be nice to see a good discussion of the benefits of having a cash allocation:
[*] reduce temptation to market time or deviate from allocation
[*] have higher deductibles on insurance policies which is as good as tax free income
[*] get good returns with reward checking accounts, prepaid cards etc.
[*] Get bonuses for opening accounts

Could someone with edit privileges please consider? Thanks.
Just request wiki privileges so you can do it yourself. :)

User avatar
Misenplace
Moderator
Posts: 1273
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 9:46 pm

Re: Could someone please update the wiki “Cash Equivalents” page?

Post by Misenplace » Mon Oct 28, 2019 5:24 pm

DesertMan wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 4:49 pm
It would be nice to see a good discussion of the benefits of having a cash allocation:
[*] reduce temptation to market time or deviate from allocation
[*] have higher deductibles on insurance policies which is as good as tax free income
[*] get good returns with reward checking accounts, prepaid cards etc.
[*] Get bonuses for opening accounts

Could someone with edit privileges please consider? Thanks.
DesertMan, I merged your topic into the existing topic "Suggestions for the Wiki". You can also reach this topic from the first page of the wiki, here:Boglehead Wiki- scroll down to the section "Contributing to the Wiki."

Moderator Misenplace

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 57859
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Mon Oct 28, 2019 7:36 pm

dratkinson wrote:
Mon Oct 28, 2019 10:59 am
Suggest restructuring Wiki pages related to planning for children so all are accessed from one top-level page.


Suggest new top-level page “Accounts for children”, that links to:

--“Custodial savings account and custodial Roth IRA account for children” (re-title topic)
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Accounts_for_children

--“Uniform Gift to Minors Act (UGMA) and Uniform Transfers to Minors Act (UTMA)” (re-title topic)
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/UTMA

--“529 plan account transfers”
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/529_pla ... _transfers

--“Coverdell Education Saving Account
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Coverde ... s_Accounts

--“Kiddie tax”
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Kiddie_tax

Wealth transfer insurance
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Wealth_ ... _insurance



Page UTMA only links to existing UGMA page.
Existing: https://www.bogleheads.org/w/index.php? ... edirect=no


Looked but didn’t immediately find any other Wiki pages related to planning for children. If I missed any, then suggest including them also.

Why?

I thought of this because the suggestions presented in current forum topic:
“non-education accounts for kids”: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=293574
would require multiple Wiki searches to find.

So suggest restructuring the Wiki so all children topics are found with one search.
Thanks! Instead of a top-level page, I created a navigation menu that will appear at the bottom of each page. In this manner, all of the pages are linked together. There's no need to search.

Here's the menu: Template:Accounts for children
Wiki 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.

snailderby
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:30 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by snailderby » Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:47 am

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/ETFs_vs ... nal_shares currently reads:
ETFs can only be bought in whole share amounts.
Should this be edited to something like this?
Most brokerages only allow investors to buy ETFs in whole share amounts.

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 57859
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek » Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:00 pm

Thanks! There's one catch - moving your account to another broker that doesn't support fractional shares means that you have to sell the fractional shares and pay a tax on the gain.

The wiki has been updated: ETFs vs mutual funds - Bogleheads (Fractional shares)

I gave you credit for the suggestion, which can be seen in the View history tab (top entry):
Revised description (fractional shares), suggested by snailderby.
Wiki 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
abuss368
Posts: 16122
Joined: Mon Aug 03, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: Where the water is warm, the drinks are cold, and I don't know the names of the players!

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by abuss368 » Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:28 pm

Would it be possible to add the Jack Bogle and Warren Buffett Two Fund Portfolio's to the Wiki?

Jack Bogle - Total Stock and Total Bond

Warren Buffett - S&P 500 and Short Term Treasury Bonds

Taylor Larimore post on my "Jack Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio" thread a naming suggestion of the B&B Portfolio!
John C. Bogle - Two Fund Portfolio: Total Stock & Total Bond. "Simplicity is the master key to financial success."

snailderby
Posts: 478
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2018 11:30 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by snailderby » Tue Nov 26, 2019 11:36 am

LadyGeek wrote:
Mon Nov 25, 2019 9:00 pm
Thanks! There's one catch - moving your account to another broker that doesn't support fractional shares means that you have to sell the fractional shares and pay a tax on the gain.

The wiki has been updated: ETFs vs mutual funds - Bogleheads (Fractional shares)

I gave you credit for the suggestion, which can be seen in the View history tab (top entry):
Revised description (fractional shares), suggested by snailderby.
Thanks for updating the wiki, LadyGeek (and for all of your moderation work)!

pepys
Posts: 74
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2018 10:34 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by pepys » Sun Dec 08, 2019 2:24 am

I think the gold article on the Wiki needs to be edited.

This piece of information is incorrect:
The following table provides annual gold prices (including high and low prices) starting in 1970, the year gold was officially freed from government price controls and allowed to freely trade on the open market.
The year that gold was officially freed from government price controls was 1978. From the IMF:
The Second Amendment to the Articles of Agreement passed April 1978 fundamentally changed the role of gold in the international monetary system by eliminating its use as the common denominator of the post-World War II exchange rate system and as the basis of the value of the Special Drawing Right (SDR). It also abolished the official price of gold and ended its obligatory use in transactions between the IMF and its member countries. It also required the IMF, when dealing in gold, to avoid managing or fixing its price.
The year gold was allowed to trade freely on the open market depends on what market it's referring to. Gold was illegal to speculate on in the United States until December 31, 1974. In other major developed countries, it was always allowed to trade freely, although there were certainly attempts by governments to manipulate the price, most notably the gold pool (which ended in 1968) and later the gold auctions by the IMF and US Treasury:
The Treasury had embarked on its program of regular sales in an effort to reduce the attractiveness of gold as an alternative to dollars among currency speculators. The sales were intended to check the rapid rise in gold prices.
The auctions did not end until October 1979 for the US Treasury and May 1980 for the IMF.

None of the linked sources support the original claim, so I'm not sure what it is referring to.

My proposal is to replace that with at least a paragraph on this history. Perhaps:
Before 1968, the price of gold was relatively stable, with few major fluctuations ("The Golden Dilemma" 13). From 1968-1978 fundamental changes were made to the global monetary system and gold's treatment in the United States, potentially changing gold's role as an asset class. In 1968, the "gold pool" system, where central banks traded on the private market to control the price of gold, was ended, resulting in the price of gold diverging from the official price (O'Callaghan 1). The United States stopped allowing the convertibility of the dollar to gold in 1971 and officially ended it in 1973 ("The Golden Dilemma" 5). Gold was re-legalized for Americans to own and trade in 1975 ("The Gold Dilemma" 4). In 1978, the official price of gold was finally removed ("Gold in the IMF"). During and after these changes, the real price of gold has been highly volatile ("The Golden Dilemma" 14)
This utilizes two papers already in the bibliography and the IMF article I linked to above.

Other possible changes:

The return calculation in the spreadsheet at the bottom could have additional values for another start year or completely change the start year. The linked article and papers differ wildly on start years (from 1970 in the Zimmerman/McCown papers to 1995 in the Baur and Lucey paper), but only two of the links comment at all on the issue of start dates.

The Artigas article starts in 1987, but says:
Ideally, one would use a series going back as far as 1972, the year by which the gold window had been closed and the metal’s price was allowed to float freely.
The Erb and Harvey "The Golden Dilemma" paper goes the most in-depth. They cite another paper, Barsky and Summers (1988), saying:
we focus on the period from 1973 to the present, after the gold market was sufficiently free from government pegging operations and from limitations on private trading for there to be a genuine ‘market’ price of gold
But they ultimately decide to start in 1975, since that is the first year US citizens were allowed to speculate in gold again.

I don't think the start date matters too much as long as sufficient information is given, especially because there is another table on the Wiki with the start year at 1900.

The Baur and Lucey paper, "Is Gold a Hedge or a Safe Haven? An Analysis of Stocks, Bonds and Gold" link is dead. I found another link for it at SSRN though, so the "Available at SSRN." can be added to it if we use this: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm ... _id=952289

All the data links are dead too. Not sure the course of action on that.
"Give me enough leverage and a fund on which to place it, and I shall move the world"

Post Reply