Author Topic: Motley Fool Plays the Fool  (Read 2268 times)

lukethecoder

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« on: July 16, 2017, 06:06:02 PM »
This made me laugh: https://www.fool.com/retirement/2017/07/16/do-you-need-1-million-to-retire-maybe.aspx

The snowball of expenses they list demonstrate a precisely anti-Mustaschian way of thinking.

So glad I know otherwise ;)

ducky19

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 292
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #1 on: July 17, 2017, 08:54:49 AM »
The MF used to actually have some decent information a few years ago, lately it's been nothing but trash like this and the next "hot" stock tip.

FINate

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 651
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #2 on: July 17, 2017, 09:17:45 AM »
Gah! The list of inflated expenses is just the tip of the iceberg:

For a couple, that's $32,640. If we subtract that figure from $55,705, we arrive at $23,065 per year needed from independent savings. Multiply that by 20 years, and we arrive at a total of $461,300 -- not even half the $1 million figure we alluded to earlier.

This is predicated on the idea that you save a large stash, keep it as cash earning 0%, and spend it down to $0 until you die. Who retires like this?! What happens if you live for 30 or 40 years? That the 4% rule of thumb withdrawal rate wasn't even mentioned leads me to believe that this author has no clue about planning for retirement. Another example of the internet making us dumber.

farfromfire

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 202
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #3 on: July 18, 2017, 02:26:50 AM »
Gah! The list of inflated expenses is just the tip of the iceberg:

For a couple, that's $32,640. If we subtract that figure from $55,705, we arrive at $23,065 per year needed from independent savings. Multiply that by 20 years, and we arrive at a total of $461,300 -- not even half the $1 million figure we alluded to earlier.

This is predicated on the idea that you save a large stash, keep it as cash earning 0%, and spend it down to $0 until you die. Who retires like this?! What happens if you live for 30 or 40 years? That the 4% rule of thumb withdrawal rate wasn't even mentioned leads me to believe that this author has no clue about planning for retirement. Another example of the internet making us dumber.
Many, many people unfortunately. The best part is the article does count stock market returns - but only during accumulation.

lizzzi

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1758
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #4 on: July 18, 2017, 05:55:16 AM »
I stopped reading any Motley Fool articles years ago. Back in the day, they were a good, frugal, common sense website. But that changed somewhere along the line. They have been full of baloney and a waste of time for a long time.

Holyoak

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 245
  • Age: 51
  • Location: W. PA
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #5 on: July 18, 2017, 08:11:17 AM »
The MF used to actually have some decent information a few years ago, lately it's been nothing but trash like this and the next "hot" stock tip.

Yep, and the trash they have become should embarrass them...  But it Do$$$ent. 

WildJager

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 425
  • Age: 31
    • Can't complain.
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #6 on: July 19, 2017, 09:49:48 AM »
Quote
(If you think you're not going to watch TV once you're retired, think again.)

Well, fuck, I might as well get cable TV now since I'm going to need it in retirement.  And a TV I guess. 

MarciaB

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 314
  • Age: 56
  • Location: Oregon
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #7 on: July 19, 2017, 10:26:44 AM »
Quote
(If you think you're not going to watch TV once you're retired, think again.)

Well, fuck, I might as well get cable TV now since I'm going to need it in retirement.  And a TV I guess.

Yeah, me too. I haven't had one in a dozen or more years, but since I've just recently FIRE'd I suppose it's time.

Because  [Retirement=Time=TV]  apparently.

WTF is wrong with these people??!
My (admittedly kinda lame) blog on topics having to do with stuff, paring down your stuff to nothing, travel, and misc: www.baggypop.com

SeaEhm

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 428
  • The Guilt is Real
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #8 on: July 19, 2017, 10:30:20 AM »
They didn't even factor in bingo cards.  Those aren't getting any cheaper these days.
Just here to feel guilty about my purchases which are often irrational, wants, and in an atypical budget.

Maenad

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 106
  • Location: Minneapolis 'burbs
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #9 on: July 19, 2017, 12:18:53 PM »
I stopped reading any Motley Fool articles years ago. Back in the day, they were a good, frugal, common sense website. But that changed somewhere along the line. They have been full of baloney and a waste of time for a long time.


Yeah, the Frugal Living and Retire Early Home Page message boards were what got me into FIRE planning back in 1997-98. *sigh*

TartanTallulah

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 267
  • Location: The Middle of Scenic Nowhere
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #10 on: July 19, 2017, 12:37:57 PM »
I stopped reading any Motley Fool articles years ago. Back in the day, they were a good, frugal, common sense website. But that changed somewhere along the line. They have been full of baloney and a waste of time for a long time.


Yeah, the Frugal Living and Retire Early Home Page message boards were what got me into FIRE planning back in 1997-98. *sigh*

The Motley Fool UK message boards were a rabbit hole down which I disappeared on many evenings in the late 1990s. I was disappointed when I went back on the site and saw that the message boards had all been composted.



Aelias

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 86
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2017, 01:04:39 PM »
Housing: $15,528 per year
Transportation: $6,852 per year
Food: $5,508 per year
Clothing: $1,417 per year

Huh? Now, I love clothes. I buy more clothes than I should. It's a significant weakness, and I'm working on it.

But $1,400 in clothes a year? Year in, year out? When you're retired and not having to keep up a professional appearance?  I don't get it.

Taconite

  • 5 O'Clock Shadow
  • *
  • Posts: 4
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #12 on: July 19, 2017, 03:33:19 PM »
Some articles are better than others.  I still use the Fool for introduction to investing for people who have no ideas.  I thought the following article was OK. :D

https://www.fool.com/investing/2017/06/17/1-chart-may-change-everything-you-know-about-achie.aspx

A Definite Beta Guy

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 414
Re: Motley Fool Plays the Fool
« Reply #13 on: July 19, 2017, 04:28:34 PM »
Housing: $15,528 per year
Transportation: $6,852 per year
Food: $5,508 per year
Clothing: $1,417 per year

Huh? Now, I love clothes. I buy more clothes than I should. It's a significant weakness, and I'm working on it.

But $1,400 in clothes a year? Year in, year out? When you're retired and not having to keep up a professional appearance?  I don't get it.

I don't spend that much on any of that crap now. Well, okay, I do on transportation, because I was kinda stupid and financed a car, and then there's the mortgage, but those are not going to be continuing expenses in retirement.

We had a financial adviser come in and tell us we needed to replace 75-80% of our gross income in retirement. Da fuq? I'm living on 30% of my income now and I'm not even frugal. The hell do I need twice as much money for? Do I swim in my money?