Suggestions for the Wiki

US Local Chapters, Wiki, and general Bogleheads community discussion, news, events, and announcements.
Post Reply
User avatar
tadamsmar
Posts: 9560
Joined: Mon May 07, 2007 12:33 pm

The Wiki on RMD is incorrect, out of date

Post by tadamsmar »

[Post merged into here --admin LadyGeek]

The wiki has out-of-date RMD tables that are not valid for 2022:

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Require ... alculation

I just noticed that the value for age 72 in Table III is incorrect. It should be 27.4, not 25.6.
Last edited by tadamsmar on Thu Mar 24, 2022 8:31 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 83286
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek »

tadamsmar - Thanks! I have merged your post into the ongoing discussion.
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
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 83286
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek »

FYI - I haven't forgotten about your suggestion. If another wiki editor doesn't get to this in the next few days, I'll update the tables.
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
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 83286
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek »

The page has been updated. See: Required Minimum Distribution

The update was done by another wiki editor. The top of every page has a View history tab so you can see all of the updates and who made the changes. In this case, the update was done by Barry Barnitz.
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.
RobG
Posts: 1250
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 12:59 am
Location: Bozeman, MT

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by RobG »

This is regarding the custodian part of the HSA wiki, https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Health_ ... nd_options
Health Savings Administrators was acquired by HealthEquity so it no longer exists, but the Wiki has not been updated.

A BH thread on the subject: viewtopic.php?t=369805
Stay thrifty my friends.
User avatar
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 32078
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by grabiner »

RobG wrote: Thu Apr 07, 2022 8:49 pm This is regarding the custodian part of the HSA wiki, https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Health_ ... nd_options
Health Savings Administrators was acquired by HealthEquity so it no longer exists, but the Wiki has not been updated.

A BH thread on the subject: viewtopic.php?t=369805
I updated the wiki; thanks.
Wiki David Grabiner
secondopinion
Posts: 3015
Joined: Wed Dec 02, 2020 1:18 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by secondopinion »

I do think some of the less common investment choices (like high yield bonds and preferred stock) need an update on the page of what is available. These days, cheaper options exist for both (PFFD https://www.globalxetfs.com/funds/pffd/ and PFFV https://www.globalxetfs.com/funds/pffv/ for preferred stock; and SPHY https://www.ssga.com/us/en/individual/e ... d-etf-sphy and USHY https://www.ishares.com/us/products/291 ... e-bond-etf).
Passive investing: not about making big bucks but making profits. Active investing: not about beating the market but meeting goals. Speculation: not about timing the market but taking profitable risks.
000
Posts: 7674
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by 000 »

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Market-linked_CD

I was glancing at the wiki article about market linked CDs which contains this figure:
MLCDs were in especially high demand in 2011. Banks sold a record 1,271 of them during the year, totaling an estimated $25 billion dollars.
I can't access the citation, but how can the 1,271 number possibly be correct? The average CD would be $19.6+ million dollars if that were true.
Silk McCue
Posts: 7129
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:11 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by Silk McCue »

000 wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 4:25 pm https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Market-linked_CD

I was glancing at the wiki article about market linked CDs which contains this figure:
MLCDs were in especially high demand in 2011. Banks sold a record 1,271 of them during the year, totaling an estimated $25 billion dollars.
I can't access the citation, but how can the 1,271 number possibly be correct? The average CD would be $19.6+ million dollars if that were true.
Most likely the 1271 number refers to large pools of funds for which individuals acquired a portion through brokers.

This article also references the 1271 number in paragraph 5.

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/market-link ... -9765.html

Cheers
000
Posts: 7674
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by 000 »

Silk McCue wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:07 pm Most likely the 1271 number refers to large pools of funds for which individuals acquired a portion through brokers.

This article also references the 1271 number in paragraph 5.

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/market-link ... -9765.html

Cheers
Probably, but the phrasing is incorrect, or at least unclear, and probably irrelevant to the wiki article.
Silk McCue
Posts: 7129
Joined: Thu Feb 25, 2016 7:11 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by Silk McCue »

000 wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:35 pm
Silk McCue wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:07 pm Most likely the 1271 number refers to large pools of funds for which individuals acquired a portion through brokers.

This article also references the 1271 number in paragraph 5.

https://www.fa-mag.com/news/market-link ... -9765.html

Cheers
Probably, but the phrasing is incorrect, or at least unclear, and probably irrelevant to the wiki article.
The Wiki was last edited 7 years ago. Your argument is with a quote from a published source in 2011. Nothing needs to be fixed here as far as I can tell.

Cheers
000
Posts: 7674
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by 000 »

Silk McCue wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:40 pm The Wiki was last edited 7 years ago. Your argument is with a quote from a published source in 2011. Nothing needs to be fixed here as far as I can tell.

Cheers
This thread is about "suggestions" not "fixes".

A wiki is not a static machine that you have someone come and replace a valve when it breaks.

Do you not see any irony in your post that "nothing needs to be fixed" about an article that has not been touched for seven years and is quoting unclear, irrelevant data from a source more than a decade old that is behind a paywall?

Oh well.....
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 83286
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek »

000 wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:35 pm Probably, but the phrasing is incorrect, or at least unclear, and probably irrelevant to the wiki article.
Please suggest better wording. If you have more recent statistics, please supply that as well (along with a link to the information source).

Article under discussion: Market-linked CD.
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
FiveK
Posts: 12863
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:43 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by FiveK »

000 wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:35 pm Probably, but the phrasing is incorrect, or at least unclear, and probably irrelevant to the wiki article.
+1

How many different versions were available in a specific year isn't very interesting more than 10 years later. That sentence and reference are now gone, but of course could be reinstated/reworded if someone wishes.
000
Posts: 7674
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by 000 »

LadyGeek wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:15 pm
000 wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:35 pm Probably, but the phrasing is incorrect, or at least unclear, and probably irrelevant to the wiki article.
Please suggest better wording. If you have more recent statistics, please supply that as well (along with a link to the information source).

Article under discussion: Market-linked CD.
The sentence was removed, a decision I think is a good one. If it were to be reinstated I could offer some wording ideas.

I'm sorry but I do not have more recent statistics. I only came upon the MLCDs article when researching them out of unfamiliarity with them.
Last edited by 000 on Sat Apr 23, 2022 12:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
000
Posts: 7674
Joined: Thu Jul 23, 2020 12:04 am

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by 000 »

FiveK wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 7:29 pm
000 wrote: Fri Apr 22, 2022 6:35 pm Probably, but the phrasing is incorrect, or at least unclear, and probably irrelevant to the wiki article.
+1

How many different versions were available in a specific year isn't very interesting more than 10 years later. That sentence and reference are now gone, but of course could be reinstated/reworded if someone wishes.
:sharebeer
lazynovice
Posts: 2831
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:48 pm

Non-Qualified Dividends Wiki Edit Suggestion

Post by lazynovice »

[Thread merged into here --admin LadyGeek]

Not sure where to put this-

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Non-qualified_dividends

“Non-qualified dividends. Your mutual fund may receive dividends that are non-qualified. For example, the mutual fund may sell shares just 35 days after buying them, but after receiving a dividend. The mutual fund has to hold the shares at least 61 days to have a qualified dividend. Any amount the mutual fund receives as a non-qualified dividend gets paid to you as a non-qualified dividend.”

“Holding mutual fund shares less than 61 days. You should also be aware that any dividend you receive on mutual fund shares held less than 61 days is a non-qualified dividend, even if the mutual fund reports that amount to you as a qualified dividend. You don't have to buy the shares 61 days before the dividend is paid, but the total amount of time you hold the shares (including time before and after the dividend) has to be at least 61 days.[1]”

I believe both of these paragraphs apply to ETFs as well. I am not sure but I believe the second paragraph applies to individual stocks as well.
User avatar
FiveK
Posts: 12863
Joined: Sun Mar 16, 2014 2:43 pm

Re: Non-Qualified Dividends Wiki Edit Suggestion

Post by FiveK »

User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 83286
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek »

I merged lazynovice's thread into the ongoing discussion.
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.
MiragePi
Posts: 5
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 12:55 pm

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by MiragePi »

On the TD Ameritrade wiki page, I suspect that the "Similar TD Ameritrade ETF" that is recommended for "Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX)" could be improved. I also suspect the entire section might be unnecessary.

As I understand it, VGTSX consists of large, mid and small cap companies in 46 developed and emerging markets worldwide, excluding the USA.

Currently there are two ETFs that are recommended on the TD Ameritrade wiki page as being similar:
SPDR Portfolio Developed World ex-US ETF (SPDW)
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI)

The concerns I have with these recommendations are:
1. SPDW only contains developed countries excluding the USA. So it does not include the emerging markets.
2. ACWI contains large- and mid-capitalization developed and emerging market equities. So it also includes the USA. It also doesn't include small-cap.
3. TD Ameritrade offers $0 commission trades on any ETF, I believe. So identifying ETFs specific to TD Ameritrade does not seem necessary.

I suggest these improvements:
Improvement Option A: Eliminate the entire table of similar TD Ameritrade ETFs. Change the "Please see..." link to ETFs for Bogleheads
-or-
Improvement Option B: Make these changes:
1. Add a note saying that SPDW should be supplemented with an emerging markets ETF (SPEM) to approximate VGTSX.
2. Replace ACWI with ACWX (iShares MSCI ACWI EX US ETF). The benchmark for ACWI is the MSCI ACWI ex USA Index which is composed of large- and mid-cap non-U.S. equities.
3. Add a node saying that ACWX does not contain small-cap equities, so it should be supplemented with international small-cap coverage that can be found on International Small Cap wiki page
Last edited by MiragePi on Fri Jun 24, 2022 2:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 83286
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Non-Qualified Dividends Wiki Edit Suggestion

Post by LadyGeek »

lazynovice wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:00 pm [Thread merged into here --admin LadyGeek]

Not sure where to put this-

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Non-qualified_dividends

“Non-qualified dividends. Your mutual fund may receive dividends that are non-qualified. For example, the mutual fund may sell shares just 35 days after buying them, but after receiving a dividend. The mutual fund has to hold the shares at least 61 days to have a qualified dividend. Any amount the mutual fund receives as a non-qualified dividend gets paid to you as a non-qualified dividend.”

“Holding mutual fund shares less than 61 days. You should also be aware that any dividend you receive on mutual fund shares held less than 61 days is a non-qualified dividend, even if the mutual fund reports that amount to you as a qualified dividend. You don't have to buy the shares 61 days before the dividend is paid, but the total amount of time you hold the shares (including time before and after the dividend) has to be at least 61 days.[1]”

I believe both of these paragraphs apply to ETFs as well. I am not sure but I believe the second paragraph applies to individual stocks as well.
Thanks! Actually, that wiki page had out-dated and incorrect information. The reference cited for the page was long since gone, so I couldn't see how the content was created.

I found good info at Fidelity and used that to overhaul the page. See: Non-qualified dividends

How's it look?
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
dratkinson
Posts: 5726
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 6:23 pm
Location: Centennial CO

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by dratkinson »

  • Time period to hold shares. To qualify for the long-term capital gains rate, you must own those shares for at least for at least 61 days out of the 121-day period that began 60 days before the security’s ex-dividend date (the same requirement as a fund or stock). ...
d.r.a., not dr.a. | I'm a novice investor; you are forewarned.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 83286
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek »

I have corrected the wiki, thanks! See: Non-qualified dividends
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.
lazynovice
Posts: 2831
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:48 pm

Re: Non-Qualified Dividends Wiki Edit Suggestion

Post by lazynovice »

LadyGeek wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 8:57 am
lazynovice wrote: Wed Jun 22, 2022 8:00 pm [Thread merged into here --admin LadyGeek]

Not sure where to put this-

https://www.bogleheads.org/wiki/Non-qualified_dividends

“Non-qualified dividends. Your mutual fund may receive dividends that are non-qualified. For example, the mutual fund may sell shares just 35 days after buying them, but after receiving a dividend. The mutual fund has to hold the shares at least 61 days to have a qualified dividend. Any amount the mutual fund receives as a non-qualified dividend gets paid to you as a non-qualified dividend.”

“Holding mutual fund shares less than 61 days. You should also be aware that any dividend you receive on mutual fund shares held less than 61 days is a non-qualified dividend, even if the mutual fund reports that amount to you as a qualified dividend. You don't have to buy the shares 61 days before the dividend is paid, but the total amount of time you hold the shares (including time before and after the dividend) has to be at least 61 days.[1]”

I believe both of these paragraphs apply to ETFs as well. I am not sure but I believe the second paragraph applies to individual stocks as well.
Thanks! Actually, that wiki page had out-dated and incorrect information. The reference cited for the page was long since gone, so I couldn't see how the content was created.

I found good info at Fidelity and used that to overhaul the page. See: Non-qualified dividends

How's it look?
“Non-qualified dividends. A mutual fund, ETF, or stock may distribute dividends that are non-qualified. A fund must hold the security for at least 61 days out of the 121-day period that began 60 days before the security’s ex-dividend date. If this requirement is not met, the dividends do not qualify for the long-term capital gains rate and are treated as ordinary income.”

I don’t think a stock can distribute a non-qualified dividend. I think mentioning stocks is appropriate in the holding period paragraph but not here. But truthfully, I don’t KNOW because I’ve never owned an individual stock.

And thank you!
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 83286
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek »

Reading the Fidelity article again, I think you're right. I removed "stocks" from the paragraph. While I was at it, I clarified what "unhedged" in the notes meant.

See: Non-qualified dividends
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
grabiner
Advisory Board
Posts: 32078
Joined: Tue Feb 20, 2007 11:58 pm
Location: Columbia, MD

Re: Non-Qualified Dividends Wiki Edit Suggestion

Post by grabiner »

lazynovice wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:16 pm “Non-qualified dividends. A mutual fund, ETF, or stock may distribute dividends that are non-qualified. A fund must hold the security for at least 61 days out of the 121-day period that began 60 days before the security’s ex-dividend date. If this requirement is not met, the dividends do not qualify for the long-term capital gains rate and are treated as ordinary income.”

I don’t think a stock can distribute a non-qualified dividend. I think mentioning stocks is appropriate in the holding period paragraph but not here. But truthfully, I don’t KNOW because I’ve never owned an individual stock.
REITs, many preferred stocks, and some foreign stocks (depending on tax treaty and accounting rules) can distribute non-qualified dividends. In addition, if you hold a stock but the brokerage lends it to a short seller, the short seller pays you an amount equal to the dividend you would have received. While you think of this as a dividend on a stock, it wasn't made by the corporation and is thus taxed to you as a non-qualified dividend.

In addition, you have the 61-day rule for any individual stocks you hold.
Wiki David Grabiner
lazynovice
Posts: 2831
Joined: Mon Apr 16, 2012 10:48 pm

Re: Non-Qualified Dividends Wiki Edit Suggestion

Post by lazynovice »

grabiner wrote: Sat Jun 25, 2022 8:00 am
lazynovice wrote: Fri Jun 24, 2022 9:16 pm “Non-qualified dividends. A mutual fund, ETF, or stock may distribute dividends that are non-qualified. A fund must hold the security for at least 61 days out of the 121-day period that began 60 days before the security’s ex-dividend date. If this requirement is not met, the dividends do not qualify for the long-term capital gains rate and are treated as ordinary income.”

I don’t think a stock can distribute a non-qualified dividend. I think mentioning stocks is appropriate in the holding period paragraph but not here. But truthfully, I don’t KNOW because I’ve never owned an individual stock.
REITs, many preferred stocks, and some foreign stocks (depending on tax treaty and accounting rules) can distribute non-qualified dividends. In addition, if you hold a stock but the brokerage lends it to a short seller, the short seller pays you an amount equal to the dividend you would have received. While you think of this as a dividend on a stock, it wasn't made by the corporation and is thus taxed to you as a non-qualified dividend.

In addition, you have the 61-day rule for any individual stocks you hold.
Thanks for the clarification because I sure had no idea.
User avatar
LadyGeek
Site Admin
Posts: 83286
Joined: Sat Dec 20, 2008 5:34 pm
Location: Philadelphia
Contact:

Re: Suggestions for the Wiki

Post by LadyGeek »

MiragePi wrote: Thu Jun 23, 2022 9:56 am On the TD Ameritrade wiki page, I suspect that the "Similar TD Ameritrade ETF" that is recommended for "Vanguard Total International Stock Index Fund (VGTSX)" could be improved. I also suspect the entire section might be unnecessary.

As I understand it, VGTSX consists of large, mid and small cap companies in 46 developed and emerging markets worldwide, excluding the USA.

Currently there are two ETFs that are recommended on the TD Ameritrade wiki page as being similar:
SPDR Portfolio Developed World ex-US ETF (SPDW)
iShares MSCI ACWI ETF (ACWI)

The concerns I have with these recommendations are:
1. SPDW only contains developed countries excluding the USA. So it does not include the emerging markets.
2. ACWI contains large- and mid-capitalization developed and emerging market equities. So it also includes the USA. It also doesn't include small-cap.
3. TD Ameritrade offers $0 commission trades on any ETF, I believe. So identifying ETFs specific to TD Ameritrade does not seem necessary.

I suggest these improvements:
Improvement Option A: Eliminate the entire table of similar TD Ameritrade ETFs. Change the "Please see..." link to ETFs for Bogleheads
-or-
Improvement Option B: Make these changes:
1. Add a note saying that SPDW should be supplemented with an emerging markets ETF (SPEM) to approximate VGTSX.
2. Replace ACWI with ACWX (iShares MSCI ACWI EX US ETF). The benchmark for ACWI is the MSCI ACWI ex USA Index which is composed of large- and mid-cap non-U.S. equities.
3. Add a node saying that ACWX does not contain small-cap equities, so it should be supplemented with international small-cap coverage that can be found on International Small Cap wiki page
Thanks! I went with Option A because it's always best to have a single information source. When it's time for an update, you only need to do it once.

See: TD Ameritrade

I also removed the suggestions under the table. Here's the prior version: Revision as of 16:28, 15 April 2021

If you think (or anyone else thinks) that those descriptions should be included in the page, post here and we'll put it back. If you think it should be updated, please provide a description (or enough to understand what's needed).
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.
Post Reply